An all electric with no batteries? Yeah fucking right. That's like asking for a gasoline engine that doesn't have a tank for the gas
I suggest you look up "ultracapacitor" and/or "supercapacitor." You might look up fuel cells while you're at it, you know, just for fun. Despite what you may have been told elsewhere, there is, in fact, more than one way to create a tappable, portable reserve of electric potential.
Why don't you just ask for a goddamned flying unicorn
I have considered the matter, and have (regretfully, of course) abandoned that particular path due to the necessity of shoveling unicorn dung.
I'm waiting for a model that is all-electric, won't require a $10,000 battery replacement after ten years (or ever, preferably), has over a 300 mile range when being driven aggressively with the A/C and/or heater running and the audio system blasting, is or can-switch-to 4WD with significant ground clearance, can carry significant cargo preferably in a pickup truck format with an extended cab or perhaps a roomy SUV format, and costs somewhere under 50k.
First trigger would be ultracaps or some other transformative storage tech (presuming no transformative on-board generation tech arrives first or otherwise). Second trigger would be that range issue. Finally, they have to address the complete lack of models of interest to me.
I don't think they're going to make what I want in the time I have remaining as a driver; right now, I don't even think they could do it if they had an unlimited budget.
Consequently, I'll keep rolling in what I already have.:)
There's no indication dolphin are *that* smart. Remember: the question is, why have we not seen or heard from other species? At the "lets go to space" level, there is us, and only us.
But yes, it could be that our speech and hearing, our manipulation capabilities AND intelligence make a vague model of what it takes for an alien civilization to do enough that we could know they are there. Wouldn't do a rabbit much good if it had a high intelligence mutation; it's not building any spaceships.
Even the concept that no other creatures are exteemely unlikely to evolve higher intelligence is a homocentric outlook. Watching a chimpanzee, or a crow fashioning tools to make their life easier is a fascinating experience. And they are doing something that until recently was considered human only.
You let me know when they have the mental chops to develop radio, or build a spaceship, ok? Otherwise, my point stands. As far as a homocentric outlook, no. I'm just pointing at the numbers. They tell the story. You may think it's likely; but the thing is, it clearly isn't. If a test is performed 24001 times and it turns out all but one test give the same negative result, the odds against that result have been well established to be very significant, and any contrary opinion of yours or mine is no longer important.
It does not take a huge mutation for a species to evolve higher intelligence. All it takes is for those members of the species sharing a trait to reproduce with better success.
Sorry, but your claim is not supported by the data. The data show that the rise of high intelligence is extremely rare here; it's only happened once. If it was anything that could be characterized as "all it takes", there would be other animals than us doing considerably more sophisticated things.
You completely lost track of the premise (and then went nuts.) I'm not talking about intelligence sufficient to survive. I'm talking about intelligence sufficient to get into space.
I never said that animals were not intelligent; that is a complete straw man on your part.
Go back, read my original post again until you understand it. Then argue, if you feel you have a counterpoint.
I can afford to ignore it. There's only one such species here, and that's where I get my odds. The odds against it happening twice are clearly higher.
All we need to know here is, currently 23000 species; over time, many, many more; how many intelligent species? One. Not two. One.
Now plug that number into the Drake equation. 23000:1 odds against intelligent life. Vastly underestimated, of course, because the total number of species that have come and gone without becoming intelligent here is actually massively larger.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands of species. Millions of years. One intelligent result. Do the math.
Actually, many species have the potential of homo sapiens - with time, and without human presence, any one of the Primate order could eventually have risen in our place.
But the thing is, they have not. They had just as much time as we did, and... nothing. Same for every other species. Nothing. Not even remotely close. Just us, that's it.
"The potential" in your assertion relies upon the idea that a completely unnecessary mutation arises and is stable within the population. This has only happened once that we know of. There are zero records of us encountering, or eliminating, such a mutant. The odds are therefore just as I laid them out (actually worse... I undercounted the number of species rather glaringly.) So your presumption has to be treated with extreme doubt because of the evidence. It may not be that there can only be one, but in fact, there is only one. Intelligence isn't required; obviously. So it tends not to evolve. Also obviously.
See, the fact that we are highly mutated primates does not imply that all primates would eventually get there, unless the mutation is *required* for survival. And clearly, it hasn't been. For any species. Even our own. We were just lucky.
For other intelligences on earth, I'm afraid your only hope is direct genetic manipulation. Or visitors.
Your argument has the same problem as the Drake equation - it doesn't take into account time.
On the contrary. In ALL THIS TIME, just us. The odds that arise from such a concurrence of events are horrible. 24000:1 odds, conservatively. And that's not a guess. That's a fact.
Intelligence sufficient to survive -- what evolution really pushed for -- is very low performance for us. Assuming another species will exceed the required baseline for survival may be an entirely unwarranted assumption. We don't know yet.
But in our case... we regularly produce *really* smart individuals. Almost incomprehensibly so as compared to that required for survival. We also figured out the scientific method and left hand-waving philosophy in its own backwater, staring at its navel, while science actually focuses on objective reality. That got us into space fairly quickly. Whereupon we also learned that space travel is (a) expensive and (b) really, really hard. If, in fact, we can manage interstellar travel, it will be because we either become so very rich (total economy of plenty) and can afford anything we like, or because someone *really* smart makes something like the Alcubierre drive actually work.
In order for us to see another non-spacefaring civilization at this point, they have to be doing some unintentional things that are detectable from here (not much in that category quite yet, and even so they have to be very close), or they have to be spacefaring enough to either signal us (expensive, also requires motivation) or actually come see us. I just don't think it's a given that evolution commonly pops up with massive intelligence sufficient to solve problems at the level humans can. My evidence? Of all the myriad species on this planet, we're the only one with even remotely this level of intelligence. So here, at least, the mutation for high intelligence is *extremely* rare.
I think we're mutated well beyond any possible need, evolutionarily speaking, but that the mutation was useful and desirable in context of our own likes and dislikes, and so it sticks. IE, people preferentially mate with really smart, successful people who can even be simply average in other areas (and let me say, I am profoundly grateful for this bias.:)
I could certainly be wrong. But then again, something should explain what we're seeing, and I think this is one of the possible explanations. If this is the case, then the "intelligence" factor in the Drake equation is so small as to be nearly equivalent to multiplying the rest of the terms by zero. No matter how large they are, multiplying them by significantly near zero is fatal to the outcome.
Earth:
5000+ mammal species
8000+ reptile species
10000+ avian species
23000 species altogether
ONE really intelligent species
1:23000 odds on a planet that is absolutely teeming with life and resources. or.00004348
Slap that in the Drake equation and see what you get.
Well, the primary evidence is that Cantor was a very powerful, well-established (13 years in congress) lockstep republican, someone in an excellent position to get things done for Virginia citizens (presuming they are republican things, of course), someone one step (one that was seen as inevitable) from Speaker of the House, which is 2nd in line for succession to the presidency, and Virginia just replaced him with a fringe candidate who has no power to do anything for Virginia citizens, seems to be roundly clueless (humorously, in answer to the question "whether there should be a minimum wage", Brat responded "I don’t have a well-crafted response on that one"), will be a junior member in anything he manages to get attached to, and further, is likely to be marginalized to the committee for painting parking spots.
So... either the Virginia electorate is batshit crazy, bottom-feeder stupid, or... the replacement was intended to disenfranchise the republican side of Virginia politics.
I don't think they're crazy. I don't think they're stupid. That leaves an intentional, well thought out move. But from the republican POV, that cannot be. Hence,the move is being made by some other force. There is only one other force: the democrats. And is there an advantage for them? Are you kidding? Unseating the speaker of the house?
Your fear of the tenure bogeyman is what's will cause these children education to suffer.
Why does it make me so uncomfortable that your argument is illiterate? Perhaps because I am assuming the argument was made by a tenured, or previously tenured, teacher?
As far as I'm concerned, the console "went away" when they came out with driveless units. All those PSP games I had bought? Useless.
So the only PSPs of interest to my family were used early models. Way to do yourself out of sales, Sony. Again. Now they're doing the same kind of thing with the PS4. PS2, PS3 titles? Nope, won't run. Customer? Nope, won't buy.:)
Yes. YES! Areas of moderately condensed moisture are SO irritating to look at. Why, just this morning I was looking eastward and cursing the clouds for reflecting the golden red hues of the sunrise and causing these super ugly RAYS of light to spread outward towards me. RAYS!!! Filthy, FILTHY water. Did you know you can DROWN in it? And... and... (whispers: fish fuck in it!)
But without continuous security updates, only disconnected machines are really usable. And a disconnected machine loses most of the benefit of the internet.
The Internet only represents a tiny fraction of what computers can do.:)
They sold you a product and it worked as advertised.
No. They didn't. I'm not talking about security updates. I'm talking about broken features that were never fixed, just left broken and abandoned in particular OS versions.
I wrote an image manipulation system that was FAR more complex than anything most people have written, and I kept it updated from day one, fixing every bug that was reported that was my bug to fix (can't fix some of microsoft's bugs for them, sadly), never breaking compatibility with previous versions, and not using new OS features except in new application features. I stopped developing it when supporting the next OS version meant that I had to break the app for everyone else -- certain APIs went away.
More recently, I've been developing an SDR application that's just exceeded 10k users (that's not too bad for such a vertical, specialized app -- and it is *very* complex), and same thing there: It still works with the original OSX I developed it under (10.5) and so far, works all the way up to 10.9. It'll probably work in 10.10, too, is my guess, but if it doesn't, and I can fix it without breaking previous customer's installations, I will.
So let's not paint too broadly with that brush, sonny. There *are* responsible developers out in the wild.
10.7 was a typo; I use 10.6.8, sorry. Can't edit these posts.
Yes, 10.6.8 documents that it supports UDP sockets. But UDP sockets are explicitly broadcast constructs, and 10.6.8 does not support broadcast reception, only private reception. IOW, if one app is using the socket to hear broadcasts, that's all you get.
I'm not about to slam Atari for their 800 not being internet capable and demand a patch.
...aaaand you have completely missed the point. Good job.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest you look up "ultracapacitor" and/or "supercapacitor." You might look up fuel cells while you're at it, you know, just for fun. Despite what you may have been told elsewhere, there is, in fact, more than one way to create a tappable, portable reserve of electric potential.
I have considered the matter, and have (regretfully, of course) abandoned that particular path due to the necessity of shoveling unicorn dung.
I'm waiting for a model that is all-electric, won't require a $10,000 battery replacement after ten years (or ever, preferably), has over a 300 mile range when being driven aggressively with the A/C and/or heater running and the audio system blasting, is or can-switch-to 4WD with significant ground clearance, can carry significant cargo preferably in a pickup truck format with an extended cab or perhaps a roomy SUV format, and costs somewhere under 50k.
First trigger would be ultracaps or some other transformative storage tech (presuming no transformative on-board generation tech arrives first or otherwise). Second trigger would be that range issue. Finally, they have to address the complete lack of models of interest to me.
I don't think they're going to make what I want in the time I have remaining as a driver; right now, I don't even think they could do it if they had an unlimited budget.
Consequently, I'll keep rolling in what I already have. :)
There's no indication dolphin are *that* smart. Remember: the question is, why have we not seen or heard from other species? At the "lets go to space" level, there is us, and only us.
But yes, it could be that our speech and hearing, our manipulation capabilities AND intelligence make a vague model of what it takes for an alien civilization to do enough that we could know they are there. Wouldn't do a rabbit much good if it had a high intelligence mutation; it's not building any spaceships.
Some rare event -- presumably an unlikely mutation.
Clue: you see that device you're typing messages into Slashdot on? ...
You let me know when they have the mental chops to develop radio, or build a spaceship, ok? Otherwise, my point stands. As far as a homocentric outlook, no. I'm just pointing at the numbers. They tell the story. You may think it's likely; but the thing is, it clearly isn't. If a test is performed 24001 times and it turns out all but one test give the same negative result, the odds against that result have been well established to be very significant, and any contrary opinion of yours or mine is no longer important.
Sorry, but your claim is not supported by the data. The data show that the rise of high intelligence is extremely rare here; it's only happened once. If it was anything that could be characterized as "all it takes", there would be other animals than us doing considerably more sophisticated things.
You completely lost track of the premise (and then went nuts.) I'm not talking about intelligence sufficient to survive. I'm talking about intelligence sufficient to get into space.
I never said that animals were not intelligent; that is a complete straw man on your part.
Go back, read my original post again until you understand it. Then argue, if you feel you have a counterpoint.
I can afford to ignore it. There's only one such species here, and that's where I get my odds. The odds against it happening twice are clearly higher.
All we need to know here is, currently 23000 species; over time, many, many more; how many intelligent species? One. Not two. One.
Now plug that number into the Drake equation. 23000:1 odds against intelligent life. Vastly underestimated, of course, because the total number of species that have come and gone without becoming intelligent here is actually massively larger.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands of species. Millions of years. One intelligent result. Do the math.
But the thing is, they have not. They had just as much time as we did, and... nothing. Same for every other species. Nothing. Not even remotely close. Just us, that's it.
"The potential" in your assertion relies upon the idea that a completely unnecessary mutation arises and is stable within the population. This has only happened once that we know of. There are zero records of us encountering, or eliminating, such a mutant. The odds are therefore just as I laid them out (actually worse... I undercounted the number of species rather glaringly.) So your presumption has to be treated with extreme doubt because of the evidence. It may not be that there can only be one, but in fact, there is only one. Intelligence isn't required; obviously. So it tends not to evolve. Also obviously.
See, the fact that we are highly mutated primates does not imply that all primates would eventually get there, unless the mutation is *required* for survival. And clearly, it hasn't been. For any species. Even our own. We were just lucky.
For other intelligences on earth, I'm afraid your only hope is direct genetic manipulation. Or visitors.
On the contrary. In ALL THIS TIME, just us. The odds that arise from such a concurrence of events are horrible. 24000:1 odds, conservatively. And that's not a guess. That's a fact.
Have you thought about how an app might act if a permission it expects to have been granted isn't actually available?
Doesn't seem like a viable solution to me.
But I also agree with the poster above who plans to use the smartphone for maps, web browsing, photos, texting and phone calls. It's a good plan.
Kinda hot in there. Just saying.
Intelligence sufficient to survive -- what evolution really pushed for -- is very low performance for us. Assuming another species will exceed the required baseline for survival may be an entirely unwarranted assumption. We don't know yet.
But in our case... we regularly produce *really* smart individuals. Almost incomprehensibly so as compared to that required for survival. We also figured out the scientific method and left hand-waving philosophy in its own backwater, staring at its navel, while science actually focuses on objective reality. That got us into space fairly quickly. Whereupon we also learned that space travel is (a) expensive and (b) really, really hard. If, in fact, we can manage interstellar travel, it will be because we either become so very rich (total economy of plenty) and can afford anything we like, or because someone *really* smart makes something like the Alcubierre drive actually work.
In order for us to see another non-spacefaring civilization at this point, they have to be doing some unintentional things that are detectable from here (not much in that category quite yet, and even so they have to be very close), or they have to be spacefaring enough to either signal us (expensive, also requires motivation) or actually come see us. I just don't think it's a given that evolution commonly pops up with massive intelligence sufficient to solve problems at the level humans can. My evidence? Of all the myriad species on this planet, we're the only one with even remotely this level of intelligence. So here, at least, the mutation for high intelligence is *extremely* rare.
I think we're mutated well beyond any possible need, evolutionarily speaking, but that the mutation was useful and desirable in context of our own likes and dislikes, and so it sticks. IE, people preferentially mate with really smart, successful people who can even be simply average in other areas (and let me say, I am profoundly grateful for this bias. :)
I could certainly be wrong. But then again, something should explain what we're seeing, and I think this is one of the possible explanations. If this is the case, then the "intelligence" factor in the Drake equation is so small as to be nearly equivalent to multiplying the rest of the terms by zero. No matter how large they are, multiplying them by significantly near zero is fatal to the outcome.
Earth:
5000+ mammal species
8000+ reptile species
10000+ avian species
23000 species altogether
ONE really intelligent species
1:23000 odds on a planet that is absolutely teeming with life and resources. or .00004348
Slap that in the Drake equation and see what you get.
Well, the primary evidence is that Cantor was a very powerful, well-established (13 years in congress) lockstep republican, someone in an excellent position to get things done for Virginia citizens (presuming they are republican things, of course), someone one step (one that was seen as inevitable) from Speaker of the House, which is 2nd in line for succession to the presidency, and Virginia just replaced him with a fringe candidate who has no power to do anything for Virginia citizens, seems to be roundly clueless (humorously, in answer to the question "whether there should be a minimum wage", Brat responded "I don’t have a well-crafted response on that one"), will be a junior member in anything he manages to get attached to, and further, is likely to be marginalized to the committee for painting parking spots.
So... either the Virginia electorate is batshit crazy, bottom-feeder stupid, or... the replacement was intended to disenfranchise the republican side of Virginia politics.
I don't think they're crazy. I don't think they're stupid. That leaves an intentional, well thought out move. But from the republican POV, that cannot be. Hence,the move is being made by some other force. There is only one other force: the democrats. And is there an advantage for them? Are you kidding? Unseating the speaker of the house?
I'd say the evidence is pretty compelling.
Why does it make me so uncomfortable that your argument is illiterate? Perhaps because I am assuming the argument was made by a tenured, or previously tenured, teacher?
And there you have it. :)
Then how do you account for the school textbook issues?
As far as I'm concerned, the console "went away" when they came out with driveless units. All those PSP games I had bought? Useless.
So the only PSPs of interest to my family were used early models. Way to do yourself out of sales, Sony. Again. Now they're doing the same kind of thing with the PS4. PS2, PS3 titles? Nope, won't run. Customer? Nope, won't buy. :)
Yes. YES! Areas of moderately condensed moisture are SO irritating to look at. Why, just this morning I was looking eastward and cursing the clouds for reflecting the golden red hues of the sunrise and causing these super ugly RAYS of light to spread outward towards me. RAYS!!! Filthy, FILTHY water. Did you know you can DROWN in it? And... and... (whispers: fish fuck in it!)
Good thing that wasn't it, then, eh?
Do you sell your strawmen in bulk? I've got some hungry cows over here.
The Internet only represents a tiny fraction of what computers can do. :)
I would be *delighted* to pay for fixes, frankly. It beats the hell out of not having them at all.
No. They didn't. I'm not talking about security updates. I'm talking about broken features that were never fixed, just left broken and abandoned in particular OS versions.
I wrote an image manipulation system that was FAR more complex than anything most people have written, and I kept it updated from day one, fixing every bug that was reported that was my bug to fix (can't fix some of microsoft's bugs for them, sadly), never breaking compatibility with previous versions, and not using new OS features except in new application features. I stopped developing it when supporting the next OS version meant that I had to break the app for everyone else -- certain APIs went away.
More recently, I've been developing an SDR application that's just exceeded 10k users (that's not too bad for such a vertical, specialized app -- and it is *very* complex), and same thing there: It still works with the original OSX I developed it under (10.5) and so far, works all the way up to 10.9. It'll probably work in 10.10, too, is my guess, but if it doesn't, and I can fix it without breaking previous customer's installations, I will.
So let's not paint too broadly with that brush, sonny. There *are* responsible developers out in the wild.
10.7 was a typo; I use 10.6.8, sorry. Can't edit these posts.
Yes, 10.6.8 documents that it supports UDP sockets. But UDP sockets are explicitly broadcast constructs, and 10.6.8 does not support broadcast reception, only private reception. IOW, if one app is using the socket to hear broadcasts, that's all you get.
No, actually, I didn't. :)