The nearest life-bearing planet is most likely hundreds of light-years away. Faster-than-light communication doesn't mean faster-than-light travel, and nobody wants to sit in a spaceship for 200 years.
But suspended animation, often used in science fiction films with long spaceflights in them, would make a 200-year-long trip seem an awful lot shorter. I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume that a life-form that achieved near-light-speed travel will have also discovered a way to lie dormant during the trip if necessary.
Also, there's no telling how long an alien life-form might live, or how patient they might be. Basing things on human lifetimes and personalities seems a little anthropocentric given that we know practically nothing about alien life.
As long as we're doing away with assumptions, we should also throw out the one that aliens have a desire to propagate and colonize across the universe.
If you can get near light speed travel, then time dilation means that you won't experience a 200 year trip, only those you left behind. So any species venturing on a one-way trip wouldn't even blink at the prospect of light speed getting in their way.
I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it, it takes light 1 year to travel 1 light-year.
If the nearest life-bearing planet is hundreds of light-years away, even if you could travel at the speed of light, it would still take you hundreds of years to get there, from your frame of reference.
Time dilation just means it would appear to take even longer from the frame of reference of those you left behind (or those you were headed towards).
This is kind of reinventing the wheel. If I want to hear things from people in my area, why can't I just walk outside and talk to them instead of using this app?
Such an odd response. How many people are waiting on your doorstep to inform you of information in your local area?
I don't think this app does information sharing any better than, say, twitter (far worse, imo) - but i find your response puzzling.
Since your issue is not of the quality of content (signal/noise), and instead that of locality.. that you believe you can just walk out of your door and get the same information this app provides - I ask you, can you? Can you walk out your door, and receive similar info to that of this app?
The range on the internet far exceeds most peoples doorstep. Mine for sure, at least.
To some, going outside and talking to people is an inconvenience and uncomfortable. Reinvention affords convenience, why rent a movie from iTunes when I can just walk the thirty minutes to my nearest DVD rental place? Why listen to a song immediately when instead I can wait for a CD to arrive in the post?
The bot probably has too much or too little mail in it's Gmail inbox, or maybe its is not many Google+ circles of confirmed authentic humans. Maybe the bot has not been using Google Chrome for a very long time, so its browsing patterns may still seem incoherent. This socially disconnected bot is abnormal; it doesn't fit into society. It deserves punishment; we'll make it click pictures of cats. Once it gets enough friends on Google+, we'll cut it some slack.
I posted this multiple times in this thread already, but I tried it with a Google Account that has a fake name, hasn’t been used for over 2 years, has received nor sent any emails since then, is in only one Google+ circle, and was only ever used from Firefox.
And it passed the test. While trying it from within a Java client toolkit.
Like, I took the worst setup any spammer would have, and it passed.
How is this going to protect my sites from spammers? And on the other hand, am I even allowed to embed this into my site, if I am in the EU (Data protection, etc)?
1. Look over someone's shoulder to get their phone password
2. Take phone discreetly
3. Enter phone, add self on snapchat, put money in Swiss bank account
4. Put phone back in person's pocket
They own the most popular video hosting site, the 5th most popular social network, the most popular search engine, the fastest internet service publicly available in the US, and the most popular web browser, and you just said they don't do anything better than advertising.
To make money. YouTube, Google+, Google Search, and Chrome don't make money, other than being vehicles for advertising. (I don't know anything about their internet service.)
While you're not wrong, this is an important statement. Fact is, youtube, google search, and chrome are all best of class products (arguably). Google is an ecosystem that keeps you by offering the best of everything. And it's all monetarily free. But this keeps you looking at advertising. People pay good money to be the first result of google. Youtube ads are generally noninvasive enough to sit through. Would you pay for google search, or youtube? I might, but eventually a free competitor would pop up and shift the momentum. Google is interesting in that other than side ventures, they have tons of great products that all tie into their only real revenue stream - advertising. And for now, weighing the pros vs the cons of this, I'm ok with it.
He was talking about their uninventive business plan. Not their consumer products. They're plan is the same as all other tech companies just they did/do it better.
I agree with most of what you said, but I personally prefer lighter text on a white background to black on white. It looks cleaner when the text is lighter.
