I think this article makes a fantastically gross error, the conclusion is fine, however the authors gloss over the fact that any space-faring life has a high probability of being machine-intelligence, not squishy biological life which 'evolved in the same manner as on earth'. (note, this is already the trend with our space exploration)
You're neglecting many reasons extra terrestrial life may pose a threat.
The most obvious is they may want our planet, they want to live here, and if they've managed to travel across the vast void of space, wiping out humanity probably won't be particularly challenging for them.
Also, your second point is invalid, territorial reasons are not void. We may pose no threat now, however a technologically superior civilization may conclude we pose a future threat, and so wipe us out now before we can become one.
Also, the old 'dangerous biology from somewhere else!' is almost entirely null and void, organisms are adapted to their environment, they usually pose negligible risk to any other environment already inhabited by biological organisms. This is why, for instance we don't treat organisms from thermal vents as 'oh noes, biohazard material'.
> You're neglecting many reasons extra terrestrial life may pose a threat.
I'm ignoring the ones that are so far in the realm of speculation with today's knowledge they could go either way. For example the argument "they may want to live here" could be valid, but there is just as much reason to believe that any space-faring civilization bent on aggressive expansion should already have significant terraforming capabilities, thereby making uninhabited worlds an easier target. The second issue with this particular argument is the probability that Earth would be a perfect environment for a given alien species: We simply don't know how many earth-like planets are out there. If there are many, the probability of compatibility would be high, but so would the number of less-problematic alternative planets to choose from. If there are few, chances are our world needs to be terraformed anyway in order to make it habitable, meaning there is no reason to choose it for colonization over many other (uninhabited) candidate planets in the first place.
> wiping out humanity probably won't be particularly challenging for them
Nobody said it would be.
> Also, your second point is invalid, territorial reasons are not void. We may pose no threat now, however a technologically superior civilization may conclude we pose a future threat, and so wipe us out now before we can become one.
That's a misunderstanding. I did categorize reasons like this one as spiritual or "other", because it's not rooted in a concrete need to eliminate us right away. Never mind the categorization: yes, that's a possibility I tried to hint at with the paragraph "There are still some nefarious reasons why an outside civilization may attack us [...] There are certainly other reasons we can't even think of yet."
> Also, the old 'dangerous biology from somewhere else!' is almost entirely null and void, organisms are adapted to their environment, they usually pose negligible risk to any other environment already inhabited by biological organisms. This is why, for instance we don't treat organisms from thermal vents as 'oh noes, biohazard material'.
I really dislike your polemic style, so let me answer in kind: the caretakers of countless pacific islands and other isolated places who are currently struggling to protect habitats from invasions of foreign species would probably like to subscribe to your newsletter. Little did they know how unfounded their concerns had been until you came along.
"Cheezburger has been a profitable business since inception. We have been profitable every single quarter, and never had a quarter with negative cash flows. "
Oh come on now, how could you have negative cash flow? Your whole business model is based around publishing content on the web you didn't create, (and 99% of the time probably don't even own the rights to), this is not exactly an expensive business to run.
You don't think it's impressive? Go do it. I believe these guys are profitable with a headcount of 20-30 people (many of whom are content moderators). They've presumably built an ad-sales machine that works, a moderation machine that works, and build some fairly sophisticated custom software as well as the business analytics software behind it to measure/improve their sites. They've also built a "market testing" machine where they launch speculative blogs and measure their success/viability.
These guys have a GREAT growth curve and healthy margins- rare in the content world. Heck, look at Reddit. Great company, soaring page views, barely profitable.
I'm sure you're similarly unimpressed with Yelp? Threadless? Digg? Reddit?
I don't think you understand my point at all. The pageviews Cheezburger garner ARE impressive. That it is possible to run a business with very low capital costs (based on wordpress blogs) fairly inexpensively (and thus grow or _shrink_ organically) is NOT impressive.
>> For example, Java, can you tell me the difference between volatile and synchronized as it regards the memory model without looking it up? What's a happens-before relationship and how is it relevant to those keywords? What's the transient modifier do?
>I didn't claim to be a Java guru. Very few Java programmers actually need to know the answers to those questions in day-to-day programming; I could probably (if asked to, which I'm not, thankfully) write thousands or tens of thousands of lines of Java without ever needing to know the answer to those.
You're wrong, and this proves the point. This isn't 'guru' level, the workings of volatile and synchronized is even on the basic SCJP test. This may not come up in your domain, but if the project deals with threading, an experienced dev will be more productive than you right off the bat, after two weeks, and probably after a year.
In fact, threading is pretty tricky, so it's likely you will be counter-productive to the team until you've made all the Java threading mistakes you need to make in order to understand why your code is bad. And, you might never know your code is bad unless a domain experienced Java dev explains it to you.
I think you're trying to make a 'smart' reference but are confused. Overall, Vonnegut was generally at least as, or more concise; there is an entire page in _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ dwelling on the sweat on someone's brow.
I think you managed to demonstrate precisely why concision is overrated. In your quest for concision you used an obscure reference to a facet of an author's literary career most of us were unaware of, thus completely obscuring your point and requiring further clarification.
"or probably one post on your facebook page asking for donations"
I seriously doubt facebook was around back when this person was in school.
And, how do you mow 15 lawns with no transport, and the people around you are too poor to even have a lawn, let alone have people mow their lawns for them? Hell, where could he even get the lawnmower in the first place?
And, 2000 cans collected is a noble (and green!) act, but there are states where they'll give a big fat nothing for recycling; in fact, the home state of Duke University (NC, USA) doesn't offer money for aluminum like up North, unless you're willing to collect a pound of it and sell it for 20 cents. I guess he could move to another state to get better recycling prices, but then there's moving costs.
Sometimes being poor sucks, and there's NOTHING you can do. Not saying his case was completely hopeless, but it's easy to find solutions when there are zero consequences.
When you work 80-100 hours a week just to keep a roof over your head, and eat at least 2 square meals a day, when exactly should this poor person mow 15 lawns (provided they had a mower and transport to get around) or collect 2000 cans (and again haul all that around)?
This doesn't explain or even address why the Japanese favor 'large round eyed' actors in ads for beauty products, why darker skinned Japanese women are not featured on TV, and why the current depictions of beauty in Japan eschew many traits common to classical Japanese portrayals of beauty.
It is glaringly obvious that European ideals of beauty have enormously affected the Japanese aesthetic, especially including anime; almost any Japanese person you meet will readily admit to this, to claim otherwise takes willful ignorance.
