The person I responded to claimed that 1/3rd of the population of India is "well off", and I proved them wrong
Nice selective memory. The person actually claimed
quite well off, have access to excellent schools thus becoming as "highly skilled" as a westerner.
All of which you quoted as "easy to disprove". Try harder next time.
Why people want to claim such easy to disprove bullshit is quite befuddling. No country has a good balance between rich, poor, and middle class. The 1/3rd of the population you claim exists and is "quite well off" simply does not! India is very similar to the US where the top
You are conflating wealth and "access to education" and/or "skills". Completely wrong in India.
For the India Illiterates like you : In India, the best educational institutions are somewhat cheap, the worse ones are expensive. Shining examples : the "Indian Institute of XYZ"s. "National Institutions" are also better than top colleges of most Asian countries. All cheap.
Many people CAN do something to force phone vendors to release updates. Google can retroactively change their terms, as you say. Supreme courts of most countries, more so those where phone vendors are headquartered or have significant business, can also do so. Anonymous can hack into phone vendors' servers and release statements about not unhacking / stopping hacking until they release updates. YOU can hack them too!!! Pope can influence lots of them - he is respected in lot of Catholic world (and non-Catholic Christian world informally). Islamic clerics can issue fatwas.
But all of them have some goal higher than releasing updates for earlier phones. Supreme courts typically care more about their constitutions than phone updates. You have better things to do than hacking phone vendors' assets. Google has better things to do than losing remaining trust by retroactively changing contracts - remember their business model is to have access to a lot of world's data only on the basis of this weak-footed trust.
I think many social conservatives will buy the religious channels just to show off when guests come over, or in general to boast that they watch such channels. On the other hand, the "objectionable" channels might have some troubles because people might not want to admit they watch those, even though they actually watch those. With bundling, people can just claim that the "objectionable" channel is there just because it is bundled, I don't actually watch it. I see serious gaps in what people watch on TV, and what they think / admit / plan to watch.
So the "objectionable" channels might need to find alternative ways to make its content available.
In fact I justified my assertion that no one individual would have access to excessive amounts of energy
Not really. Like I pointed out earlier too, your "justification" started with assuming the same fact that it tried to "justify".
You can of course simply make your own assumptions, which is exactly what your points A and B ARE
Absolutely false. Logic 101 disaster. In the form of argument you are making ("no small group of individuals of an unknown civilization can possibly have energy enough to space travel"), burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. My points A and B are just 2 possibilities, for a rigorous argument I do not even need to specify them. They are just for your benefit. The form of argument I am making (simply "not necessarily"), burden of proof is absolutely not anywhere around me.
IMHO B can be dismissed. While it is likely that we will find methods of travel that are MOST energy efficient we already know the uttermost theoretical limits on minimum energy, which are actually the ones I quoted, 450 pWh/metric ton at 0.1C (and in fact this number has been demonstrated to be low by an order of magnitude
If the distances are reduced by multiple orders of magnitude using other dimensions and wormholes, what good is a calculation using "C"[sic] ?
Would human civilization last very long if every individual had the equivalent of an arsenal capable of sterilizing the surface of the Earth?
It not only would, but it has. It all depends on the form of energy. To humans, an immense amount of energy is available in the form of free mass, using which most humans can just hurl rocks at each other. To someone in a "free mass" scarce society proficient in unlocking the energy potential of free mass, it might sound like a liberal overabundance of "energy", but we are utter fools sitting on an astronomical amount of energy , where single individuals are completely unable to destroy the civilization using this energy.
The alternative is what? Societies that stagger forward to advanced technology for a decade or a century and fling a few random objects out into the void before they go kaboom
In exactly the same manner as earth humans have an overabundance of energy in the form of mass, which is suited well for throwing rocks at each other but not for much else; the "alien" civilization might have trillions of exawatts of energy available to many single persons in a form which is not suited to going kaboom, but is suited excellently to space travelling through wormholes.
You're free to object, but I think the discussion won't move forward until you're willing to really examine your own assertions and weigh them against other possibilities.
All the points you have made so far show that it is YOU that are unwilling to consider "other possibilities". I am the one who is pointing these other possibilities to you, if you haven't noticed. That is what my points A and B are all about.
Its fine to ask these kinds of questions, but surely in a society which we might conceive to be something like known human ones since when does any one individual have at their disposal routinely vast quantites of energy far beyond what they need?
1. You didn't ask the question, you just assumed a scarcity of energy available to a single person without even stating the assumption.
2. Assumption is not substantiated because :
a. Energy might be scarce, but may not be scarce enough to limit space travel. If exawatts are required for their space travel technology, and trillions of exawatts are available to many single individuals, it is not an issue. As the whole discussion is about an UNKNOWN kind of being, such assumptions are surely not warranted. At the very least they need an explicit mention of the assumption, with an admission that it covers only a certain subset of the said space-faring human-psychology-adhering civilizations.
b. They might have found a way to space travel needing less energy than our current imaginations of space travels do. Accessing the dimensions not available to humans could shorten the distances or use wormholes. Or, of course, something completely unexplored by humans yet. We are talking about an UNKNOWN people, remember ?
As for who says, energy says.
To deluded anthropomorphising people.
would take a monster amount of energy (read above) to travel to another star system
And the basis of the discussion is that such an amount is available. Completely hypothetical, but a stated assumption nevertheless.
Surely such vast quantities of energy are far beyond what any individual would ever need
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that a single individual might have ACCESS to such an amount of energy. Assuming this is false is completely unsubstantiated, you are not even making an effort to argue why this might be false for a space-faring human-psychology-adhering civilization.
Thus it seems unlikely to me that one or a few people would ever possess by themselves the means and authority to deploy such large resources to such a project. If an entire civilization (or a large part of it) is both so impractical and so empowered that it would do such a thing then isn't it vastly more likely such a civilization would simply do something stupid and wipe itself out due to its own impracticality? That's the whole nut of the "scale beyond a few individuals" because if the whole society is insane then yes indeed they might dream of interstellar travel, but they're not going to be in a position to achieve it.
You have assumed single person won't have access to such an amount of energy (without a basis of the assumption), and then extrapolated to justify the same assumption.
Its a discussion thread, if it is 'spoiled' by there being more than one side to the discussion then all of
The standard of the discussion is lowered by arguments like yours, involving unstated as well as unsubstantiated assumptions. When questioned, the assumptions which if stated in advance would have been justifications, are invented, though without lending credence to the argument because of unsubstantiated nature of the assumptions.
No, actually they don't. Not on any scale larger than that which can be undertaken by a few individuals
Who says more than a few individuals of the human-psychology-adhering alien race are required to undertake a journey to earth? Adding unnecessary condition of "scale larger than that which can be undertaken by a few individuals" won't prove your point, but surely prove your desperation to prove your point at the cost of spoiling the discussion thread.
But hey, list all the things that a "real operating system" has that Windows lacks. Betcha you can't.
Not sure of him, but I can. Just the irritants in my rare usage of windows :
1. Reliable shutdown under 3 seconds when 50 applications are open.
2. Able to read (and later print too) the file its own "print to file" option creates.
3. Multiple users logging in to the machine at once.
I only hope that company makes the software they developed to find this out free and available for others to use so we can see
What a freetard you are! If you want to see, write your own damned software. Leech.
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.
