How many $1 bills do you carry in your pocket???
But once a civilization has achieved the Iron Age of technology, such a civilization is likely to achieve space faring status within a thousand years
It took humans 3200 years. Why do you assume that the average species is *way better* than humans?
In any case though, I thought it was pretty clearly talking about nipping things in the bud, sterilizing all life at any point in the massive timeline between the first self-replicator to a civilization capable of avoiding or defending against gamma ray bursts. The amount of time it actually takes is probably some random variable, and all things considered, how long it took us is probably around average. Earth life existed about 3.5 billion years or more before we came along.
The It's not nearly close enough. The Milgram experiment showed that people preferred science to leaving each other alone. That's the opposite of proving that people prefer killing to science.
The Stanford Prison Experiment showed some dark things about humanity but it didn't prove anything close to the original claim.
A scientific experiment that shows circumstances in which humans are shitbags, does not show that all negative statements about humans are true. That's a total logical disconnect.
He was complimenting you. Ironically, it is you who needs to examine your biases and errors in interpretation.
He's saying that the person you were responding to was spewing self-loathing crap, as evidenced in lines like:
Honestly Humanity is a joke, almost a cancer. [...] WE thrive on hating those that are different or think or worship different.
In other words, he was agreeing with you and you insulted him for it.
Fermi assumes all would be as weak as we are and just drop dead
The Fermi paradox assumes no such thing. This guy's explanation of the Fermi paradox does -- and the fact is, that's a valid assumption *until* such life becomes sufficiently advanced. The idea is that maybe these things happen so frequently that no species can become sufficiently advanced between apocalyptic gamma ray bursts.
Two, Fermi and basically all other astrobiological research areas focus on the idea that life exists only on planets, generally single planets similar to our own existence in this star system.
No, it says that what we know of the probability of intelligent life seems to be so shockingly high that we should be able to find it without even bothering to look for exotic life, life that's not located on a planet, etc.. Everything you have said about alternative habitats only strengthens the Fermi Paradox.
We're busy looking for microbes on Mars
Nobody is trying to solve the Fermi paradox by looking for microbes on Mars, because we're pretty convinced there's no civilization there. At best, discovering a microbe there might modify one term of the Drake Equation in such a way as to make the Fermi Paradox *more* puzzling. Not finding any microbe is, frankly, the null hypothesis so it wouldn't move the needle.
What does the medium of the threat have to do with its credibility?
100k doesn't sound right at all for somebody making 140k a year in non-stock (base+bonus). I would have guessed more around the 30k-40k mark. Quick searches for some well-known Silicon Valley companies corroborate that. Can you support the claim that anybody making 140k should expect 100k of stock?
You don't think that deliberately causing a panic with the intent to hurt people is an action? I think you're being deliberately obstinate on this point. That's like saying it's not your fault for pulling the trigger, it's the bullet's fault for jumping out of the gun so quickly.
"This man murdered my son!", regarding a person who you know full well did no such thing, is an example of speech that is expressly intended to cause harm and has no real value. This is why when you're giving testimony in a courtroom your right to free speech is deliberately abrogated and perjury is criminalized.
You do realize that same court case was used to suppress war protestors, correct?
Sometimes people can make good points in the process of making bad arguments. This historical context is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Unless you intent to advance a slippery slope argument.
Speech does not possess people and force them to act, so you are mistaken.
Does a real fire in a packed theater force people to act? Suppose you set such a fire, but you cleverly arranged it so that people were in no real danger, but had every reason to believe that they were in real danger. You are the theater owner and harmed no-one else's property. People predictably panic. Have you committed no crime? You are completely innocent?
If not, what is the essential difference? In both cases, there was the impression of danger from fire without actual danger from fire.
If so, then if a man literally holds a gun to your head (and, for that matter, the heads of those close to you) and said he will kill you unless you aid him in stealing all the jewellery from the jewellery store, are you fully responsible for your actions? Even if it turns out the gun wasn't loaded?
What about the guy goes around yelling "fire", or "sniper", or whatever, whenever he sees a gathering by members of a political party he opposes? Is he not now an agent restricting free speech?
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a threat. Credible threats were never considered to be protected free speech by basically any society.
No, quantum mechanics is a thing humans invented. Newtonian mechanics is a thing humans invented.
Gravity (aka gravitational behaviours) and quantum behaviours existed previous to any human.
As for Einstein? Einstein "invented" quantum mechanics in about the same sense that Shakespeare "invented" English.
Because Star Trek was known for how tight its plotlines were?
You can *absolutely* be thrown out of a hotel for using running water, and I guarantee -- outright guarantee -- that some people will use this in hotels and not be kicked out. I'd say being obnoxious about running water is *way more likley* for you to get booted from a restaurant or hotel (and a hefty fine at that) than being an asshole with one of these.
You don't need a tablet, but people buy tablets.
No he didn't. He claimed that his statements were examples of existing institutional sexism.
The best part is:
by Anonymous Coward
[...] Or hide in your anonymity and know you are a coward [...]
IQ tests may or may not be good but none of the things he said tell us that.