The iPad 1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2012/09/30/ipad-1 <comment><USER2> The RAM thing is a nice theory until you consider the 4th gen iPod touch has a similar number of pixels as iPad 1, also has 256MB of RAM and also gets iOS6 support. They're still selling it now (just about), so that's probably why.

I'm sure with a bit of engineering effort, the memory footprint of iOS could be drastically reduced. (Hire some game programmers who have worked on console games! A 1st gen iPad has about 3x as much memory as a Wii.) But let's face it, that's not going to improve their bottom line, whereas telling everyone to buy a new iPad every 24 months is.

Still, those 15+ million iPad1 owners aren't going to be all that pleased, especially those who paid through the nose for the 64GB model. (don't feel too bad though - us 16GBers already got shafted anyway when apps suddenly went huge due to retinafication)

<comment><USER3> > But let's face it, that's not going to improve their bottom line, whereas > telling everyone to buy a new iPad every 24 months is.

That kind of short-term thinking is what gets companies into trouble. No, it won't help the bottom line now, but when the next purchase rolls around, don't you think premature obsolescence (or the lack thereof) of the device being upgraded will factor into what replacement to get? It's certainly a major reason I won't buy an android device (at least one not made by google, which tend to get long term support like apple)

<comment><USER4> Just to clarify, the Nexus devices (NOT built by Google) get aee quickly upgraded (with a few exceptions on some carriers). Motorola (now a part of Google) continues to be the worst at upgrades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The disappointment, to me, isn't with the iPad alone. It's with the new move in the industry to non-upgradable devices and internet-dependent software.

I've enjoyed my iPad 1 since the day I bought it, and I haven't seen any need to replace it with a newer model. Neither the Retina Display nor the camera were particularly important to me, and I didn't have much need for more storage or memory.

Would I like to use iOS 6 on my iPad? Certainly. Do I need to? Not right now.

Over the next year or two, though, I'm sure there will be plenty of software that I'd like to use, but won't be able to. It's possible that some apps, like Netflix or Spotify, or some games, will reach a point where older versions won't work anymore, as they roll out features that require some update or another to play nicely with their servers.

What will happen if I have to restore my iPad to factory settings, or just accidentally delete some app? Will I still be able to re-install the version I need in two years, or five, or more?

Every computer reaches a useful end to its life at some point in time. The acceleration of that process due to a closed system that allows no upgrade to RAM or storage, and no ability to install software except through a centrally- controlled repository, frankly sucks.

Windows 8 shows that it's more than just Apple headed for closed systems. If current trends prevail, how far out are we from the closed model of the iPad being the standard for the industry?

I hope there will be some consumer backlash, and a company with a commitment to great technical and experience design takes up the standard of more open hardware and software as a competitive differentiator. I'd vote for them with my dollars.

<comment><USER6> It should be pretty well known by now that upgradable components in hand-held devices is a losing strategy. The mass populace of Consumers just don't care, they wan't something that _Just Works_ , that's simple, pretty and light with a long battery life. Which appears to align with Apple's focus perfectly.

I think it's safe to assume that iOS devices aren't going to come with upgradeable internal components. They've got models at different price points and their 3rd party hardware ecosystems - which they plan satisfying the consumers use-cases until the next version rolls around again.

<comment><USER7> What about the 20 seconds it takes to replace a battery on my Samsung Galaxy III S?

That isn't being upgradable, but at least fixable. Same with putting in a chip before going to Europe, etc.

<comment><USER8> It may take YOU 20 seconds. It takes my mother upwards of five minutes to replace the batteries in a standard D-cell flashlight, and then another five minutes to do it all again because she didn't put all the batteries in in the same direction.

People really appreciate things they don't have to fuss with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When the iPad 1 launched in germany, i bought a 64GB model with 3G. I payed more than 800 Euros. And now Apple tells me "it's to old, go and sell it on eBay for 150 bucks".

Are you fucking kidding me?

I'm a Apple user for ages, i have two Mac Pros, three MacBook Pros (family), one MacBook Air and all iPhones that Apple ever made. I sold every old piece of hardware or replaced it when i needed a faster or newer model. But THIS is fucking sick.

Android is rising and in 6-12 month it will be even better. If Apple continues to ship crap like Siri and iOS6 Maps with all this false marketing Apple has a dark future ahead!

I bought a Nexus 7 a few weeks ago and it cost me 200 euro. It can do nearly the same as any iPad (i use it for - yes, instapaper, email, youtube and general media consumption). Sure, there are not as many Apps as in Apples App Store, but this is going to change.

To be said: i will never buy any iPad again. Sorry iPad, but i'm with Android now!

EDIT: As some sub-commenters said/ask: I'm not 100% sure what happens when i have old App versions (compatible with my iPad 1) and i need to reinstall iOS and all my Apps (for whatever reason- maybe a crash or anything else), which App Version do i get? The latest? Or the latest one that is compatible with my iPad 1?

Since many App developers are very happy to drop support for older iOS versions (which is fine - make better software!) i think it's time for Apple to provide some backwards support for older devices. Some mechanic for developers to freeze certain App Versions especially for older devices. It's not like we're talking about ancient technology, that thing isn't even 2 years old.

<comment><USER10> Funny, I have the original iPad as well, but I haven't yet gotten the official message from Apple to sell it on eBay. Maybe they're sending them to Europe first?

Also, the strange thing is that it still runs as well as the day I bought it, and still does everything it did from Day 1, as well as new things that came with updates to iOS.

I forget, why am I supposed to be angry at Apple?

<comment><USER11> Still runs as well? I'd love to know what set up you've got.

Since iOS 5 my iPad 1 has been utterly unusable - many multi second lags and endless application quits.

Even brand new out of the box the iPad 1 and also the original iPhone were incredibly unstable - particularly in safari.

Everyone turned a blind eye to it.

<comment><USER10> Mostly browsing (new Chrome works well), Netflix, LogMeIn Ignition for remote desktop, photo viewing, Skype.

Compared to my new MacBook Air it does seems a little slow starting apps, etc, but the thing is almost 2 1/2 years old, still has good battery life, and basically does everything I want. I think I've got my money's worth already, and expect to keep using it in the future. BTW, cost of those iOS upgrades - $0. Not a bad deal compared to the $50 that software like Parallels keeps asking for every year.

<comment><USER12> I have an iPad 1 myself, and I am looking to replace it.

Browsing - complex pages (techcrunch is one particular abomination) have a tendency to crash Safari. Chrome was far too slow to bother with. Old Twitter app was crashing several times when loading in-app browser. Applications in general tend to quit a lot.

It worked wonderfully when it was out, but its barely usable now.

<comment><USER13> I get the Safari crashes too. the App Store is the worst though, seems to crash every other time I use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a developer, I would be happy to no longer have to deal with iPad 1's. They really have little memory to work with and it tends to constantly run out. Particularly when you try to pre-render things in memory to have them _smoothly_ scroll into view.

As a reminder, iPad RAM amounts (from Wikipedia):

        1st generation 256 MB DDR
        2nd generation 512 MB DDR2
        3rd generation 1 GB DDR2

So I can't blame Apple for feeling the same way. When they originally released iPad 1, they probably didn't quite anticipate how graphical and visual the user interfaces would eventually turn out to be.

<comment><USER15> > So I can't blame Apple for feeling the same way. When they originally > released iPad 1, they probably didn't quite anticipate how graphical and > visual the user interfaces would eventually turn out to be.

Oh yeah ? Apple has always skimped out on ram on every single device and made you pay a premium to get more. That wasn't a real problem on macs in the past because it wasn't difficult to add ram yourself, but now with tablets and the new macbook air and macbook pro retina.. that's kind of a problem.

I bought one of the first macbook air that had the ram soldered to the board without thinking. If I had known that Mac OS Lion and Mountain Lion would've become so bloated I wouldn't have bought the 2gb model that I sold for a measly 200 euros recently. This piece of shit couldn't browse the web with multiple tabs open without swapping even though the same task was okay in the past with Windows XP and 512mb of ram. (I probably could have gotten more but I didn't WANT to sell it for more because I would have felt like I'd be robbing someone by selling them a defective device for a premium) By the way, there wasn't a single PC vendor selling laptops with less than 4gb of ram, when I bought my MBA, even el cheapo laptops that sold for $400 had 4gb of ram (what does it says about Apple ?). I was kind of retarded to buy the 2gb MBA, and I should've spent a little more for the 4gb, but I don't really regret it either since I opened my eyes and sold all my Apple devices, and will never buy anything from apple again.

It was obvious to a LOT of people that the first iPad was way too lacking in power and would be prone to something akin to planned obsolescence. Even me, who got fucked by the Macbook air, knew that the first iPad was indecent (I waited for the iPad 2 before I got my first tablet.)

Look at the top of the line in the android world : the (tablet) Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, which has a much lower resolution than the iPad Retina (and thus less hefty memory needs for the apps), has 2gb of ram inside, future proofing it a bit against future applications. The (phone) Galaxy Note 2 also has 2gb of ram, as do some of the variants of the Galaxy S3, now that's a real top of the line phone. When I saw the retina iPad for the first time, my first impressions, after the initial "wow" you get for the screen, was, the specs are underwhelming for this kind of device.

Apple is all about the shiny. The 13" Macbook Pro still has 4gb of ram as a standard in the entry level, even though it sells for 1249 euros. I've seen PC laptops under 999 euros sold with 8gb of ram, 1TB hard drives, core i7 and a nvidia chip inside (rather than the shitty intel graphic chip that's included in the entry MBP).

I'm done getting ripped off by Apple.

<comment><USER16> I really don't know where to start with this ridiculous diatribe.

Firstly as for your MacBook Air. OSX runs fine with 2GB and shouldn't be swapping constantly for browsing. And not sure why you are complaining that you got 200 euros for a 4 year old machine.

Secondly you seem to be really bitter about not buying the cheaper and arguably nastier laptops. Why not buy them ? Clearly the only thing that concerns you is specs so why not buy an Apple ?

Thirdly a LOT of people thought the iPad was an incredibly feat of engineering to get all that it did into such a small form factor. Seems to be a lot of revisionist history there.

<comment><USER15> >Firstly as for your MacBook Air. OSX runs fine with 2GB and shouldn't be swapping constantly for browsing

What the hell are you smoking. Safari with multiple tabs will eat all the remaining memory. The whole system itself took 1,4 gb, there was only 700 mb left after startup on a CLEAN system, formatted and reinstalled without a single program running in the background (Mountain Lion).

> And not sure why you are complaining that you got 200 euros for a 4 year old > machine.

Two years old actually. It's a late 2010 MBA. And I'm not complaining, I'm actually saying that I could have sold it for more but didn't bother and sold it myself for 200 euros to get rid of it faster AND to avoid the feeling of ripping off someone (which I would have felt if I had sold it for more, because I consider it a DEAD machine. A useless machine. You can't add ram and the base system is already overloaded with its 2gb. Selling it for what I could have gotten from it (you should look up what people can actually get from selling Apple devices even when they suck) would have been ripping off someone else.)

>Secondly you seem to be really bitter about not buying the cheaper and arguably nastier laptops. Why not buy them ? Clearly the only thing that concerns you is specs so why not buy an Apple ?

I just did that, right now. Am I not free to speak my mind on Apple just like you did when you called those laptops "nasty" ?

> Thirdly a LOT of people thought the iPad was an incredibly feat of > engineering to get all that it did into such a small form factor. Seems to > be a lot of revisionist history there.

Putting mobile phone hardware inside an iPad's case is not a great "feat of engineering". I would have agreed with you if you called iOS a great feat of (software) engineering, and its user interface revolutionary for the time. But there is nothing special about the iPad's hardware. We got mobile phones today that are far more powerful than the first iPad and many mobile phone at the time had hardware similar to the iPad, it's not like Apple did anything special there, they just put a big screen and battery inside an aluminum case, where in the flying fuck do you see a great feat of engineering ? the bullshit, it hurts.

Ultimately, what's attractive about apple is what their software engineers do. And what's pushing me off is their business practice, closedness, cheapening out on specs to create planned obscolescence.

iOS was what made the iPad great and possible, as it did for the iPhone. And OS X used to be a great OS, until they added so much bloat it couldn't run on 2gb of ram. No apple fanboy here is going to admit it, but the iPad had 256mb of ram to ensure that people would upgrade to the next iPad, end of the line. Just like the first iPhone didn't have 3g even when top of the line phones from competitors had 3g, to make the early adopters spend even more money the year after.

Apple has been ripping off its customers since forever, it's just the last straw. Do you remember the days of the cd-writer/dvd reader combo you could find on many Macs even when the cheapeast PCs had DVD writers ? I do. Apple is a cheap company, that sells cheap hardware with an expensive case. It's hard not to think so, I can recall so many examples of them behaving that way. Do you know the price difference there was even back in the days of the combo drives in the mac between a combo and a dvd writer ? Nothing, it was practically nothing, a matter of a few euros. But to get a mac with a dvd writer inside you had to buy the one that cost much more in the lineup with a better processor and so on. Ridiculous. I can't believe we, as in the collective of Apple customers around the world, put up with so much shit for so long.

The only thing that saves Apple is the software, and it won't last for long, because the competition is getting much better at this. Windows 7 is stable and really nice to use, Android Jelly Bean runs as smooth on my Nexus 7 as iOS did on my iPad 2. Goodbye Apple, it was fun while it lasted.

<comment><USER17> I have a 2010 MBA with 2Gb of RAM, it only chugs on browser stuff when I've got a VM running and compiling, a terminal running various bits and 3 windows with about 6-7 tabs open. It works _fine_. Your personal experience is not a good way to go "What the hell are you smoking", as there's many of us with that model who've had nothing but happy happy joy times with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> (warning: tangential)

"Knowing Apple, that sounds like a far more plausible explanation than the most popular theory I've heard: that Apple just wants to force iPad 1 owners to buy new iPads."

I totally believe this is true on the iPad front, but I can't imagine any other reason that iOS 6 would support the iPhone 3GS but not the 3rd generation iPod Touch. They have very nearly the exact same specifications, except one has a GSM radio in it and the other doesn't. I wouldn't mind if it didn't get further updates (three years is pretty decent update-wise), but the disparity is slightly irritating.

<comment><USER19> I'm wondering about the two-year or similar contracts people signed when they purchased or obtained for free a 3GS? Perhaps there's a corner case when someone got a 3GS + 2 year contract just five months ago. Might be some backlash if the device they planned to use for the next 19 months couldn't be upgraded to the latest iOS. Note this isn't an issue with iPod Touch or iPad due to lack of contracts (except perhaps an iPad data contract? But I'm under the impression those are more flexible, month-to-month etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here's an idea:

The moment the device is no longer supported, unlock the bootloader. If you really felt philanthropic, release some docs on the hardware interfaces.

This way Linux / *BSD / Haiku / whatever could be ported and extend the usable life of the device. This would foster a thriving second hand market, massively reduce the security risks that users of the older devices are exposed to, help clear old stock, keep devices out of landfills and so on.

Apple has already said they don't support the device anymore, so they have nothing to lose by opening it up (if we accept that the reason Apple locks down their bootloaders etc is to ease the burden of support from people breaking their own devices, not an argument I entirely buy...).

<comment><USER16> Why ? The device still works on iOS5 and will still run 99% of the apps available today and over the next few years.

Most developers are still going to be targeting iOS4+ for a while to come.

<comment><USER20> Eleven good reasons:

      mfincham@desktop:~/Desktop$ grep "Subject:" < ios6.eml
      Subject: APPLE-SA-2012-09-19-1 iOS 6
      mfincham@desktop:~/Desktop$ grep "code execution" < ios6.eml | wc -l
      11

Those bugs will never be fixed for iPad 1 users.

Furthermore, "next few years" seems quite optimistic to me. There's no harm in unlocking these unsupported devices, then people can EITHER run iOS 4/5 and live with the flaws OR run their own code. Nobody loses!

(Note as well that the bugs are things like "loading a web page could result in arbitrary code execution").

<comment><USER21> I agree. Top iOS app developers like Marco are dying to move their apps to iOS 6 (according to their podcasts + blog posts), so I think we can measure app compatibility for the iPad 1 in months, not years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What Apple has done with the iPad 1 (I'll refrain from speculating on motives, as I have absolutely no idea why they _actually_ EOL'd it) is still not as bad as what they've done with armv6 devices. A developer, if they want (and some won't), can still support the iPad 1 fairly easily (or as easily as any support for iOS 5). The iPhone 3G and older, on the other hand, are truly unsupported; it is impossible to build for these devices in the iOS 6 SDK[1], making them a nightmare to support (and impossible to support alongside armv7s code for the new iPhone).

[1]: <http://blog.chpwn.com/post/31824877081>

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't get why the author feels the need to rationalize the decision as not motivated by money. Sure, it isn't the whole reason. But there is just little motivation to get iOS 6 on the iPad. Apple does a better job than pretty much everyone else in this area, but dropping hardware from iOS6 is win-win from Apple's perspective. Easier engineering effort while incentivizing upgrades.

I'm one of those iPad 1 owners left out of iOS 6, and I don't begrudge Apple that. If it was that important to me, I'd plunk down the cash.

</comment><comment><USER24> The iPad 1 feels much slower than the iPhone 3GS does today. Although I don't like this move, having played with my friends iPad 1 recently. I feel that anything further than iOS6 might slow down the device considerably. When I installed iOS6 on my 4S it became much faster which is unusual for me.

</comment><comment><USER6> I bought the 1st gen iPad knowing it was only going to be a stop gap measure until a newer version with a Camera came out (which I thought was going to be the killer feature - turns out I rarely use it) so I only bought the baseline version. I found the $499 baseline price a steal which quickly turned into my most used device. The value of Apple's products go way down the higher up the range of models you go, so I can see why iPad 1 owners may be upset - but it shouldn't be unexpected that the resale value of top range models depreciate faster than the baseline.

So I can't complain, I've got a lot of utility out of the iPad1 whose experience led me to buy the top of the line Retina iPad 3 when it came out. I was keeping the old iPad 1 around for compatibility (as an iOS dev) but I guess this means I wont need to hold onto it for much longer :).

</comment><comment><USER25> Totally didn't see this coming. I was actually looking into Settings to see if it detects the iOS 6 release and only afterwards I bothered searching the net and finding out there will be no iOS 6 update!

But this is not the biggest disappointment about the iPad1.

The big one was how iPad1 doesn't have a camera and not long after I bought it (when it finally arrived in the EU) Apple released the iPad 2 which had a camera!

How hard could it have been to engineer an external camera for the iPad1 that could be plugged in via a docking connector? This way I could use the iPad upside-down and actually have is usable as a video conferencing device.

I can't even give it to my parents as a laptop replacement (what people imagine it could be) since Skype video won't work on it!

</comment><comment><USER26> Its an interesting business question, "How much do we invest in supporting the old generation vs the return?"

Apple really hasn't set a way to price it. They could of course, they could price an iPad 1 version of IOS6 to see what the market would pay for the capability. But you get maybe one shot at that.

They could do an 'upgrade today' offer where you sent them and iPad and they gave you a discount on a new iPad, but if they sold you the new iPad at the 'loaded cost' (which is COGS + warranty support + inventory costs) it might not be as much of a discount as you could get by just applying the money you got on ebay toward a new one.

</comment><comment><USER27> I would have liked iOS 6 but you know what? My iPad still works and still does everything I bought it to do. Sure, it might be cool to have some of the new features but I'm perfectly happy without them.

</comment><comment><USER28> Apple are horrible for trying to make people upgrade - thats for sure, but really, what apps 'require ios 6'? I'm still using an iphone3 (last os upgrade was a stripped down version of ios4) and the only thing I haven't been able to download because it won't work on my phone was a some game once that was just a timewaster anyway.

The most important thing by far on a phone/tablet is the web. It doesn't care about your OS version... It was like this on the iphone1 and it will be on the ipad10.

<comment><USER29> What apps "require" ICS? Isn't Gingerbread good enough? :)

The point is that lack updates hurts consumers. This is no less true when Apple does it than when Android OEMs and carriers do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> How much more would it have cost to put an extra 256MB in the original iPad? Apple has more money in the bank than they know what to do with; over $100B. It might be a better use of the money to give a little extra RAM to make their devices run better.

<comment><USER31> Apple didn't get that money taking low margins on hardware. Overall this probably helps their new iPad sales, the vocal minority complain and everyone else probably either stays on ios5 or upgrades.

<comment><USER30> It creates a small fragment in the iOS market. Should developers move to iOS6 only support in a few months or keep supporting the iPad 1?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What trouble me is when there's a new apple release, older devices seems to automagically slow down.

When I first bought the ipad1, it was crazy fast. Everyone was amazed about the speed things would move and open. Now, everything is do damn painful to use.. it's lagging and taking eternity to do trivial tasks. (And by the way, I've formatted it and there's practically nothing on it).

My guess would be that more recent os use more memory to be more efficient on newer devices while rendering older devices slower.

I hope it's the reason, and not a voluntary "let's slow you down so you buy a new one".

<comment><USER33> Couldn't it be just perception? I still use an iPhone 3G and I remember I did not want to touch the iPhone 4 when it came out because it was a lot faster than my old 3G and I would realize it even more before playing with a 4. Now I've used a lot a 4S and the 3G is slow as hell, but I would think it is just my perception.

I use an iPad 1 and haven't used any new one for more than 5 minutes and the iPad 1 feels exactly as fast as when I first bought it.

I think the same thing happens in computers. I run a hackintosh machine with an SSD and pretty good hardware and the other day I was putting together an old PC to run MAME (I'm building an arcade cabinet) and god, the thing is slow as hell. I'm sure it was just as slow then I was using it (Pentium D with 3 Gigs of RAM), it just that we are used to be faster now.

EDIT: Note that new app versions probably ARE slower than older ones in old hardware. If the developer is using the last iPad available to test and neglecting older hardware is what happens. Back when I did native apps we used the best hardware available to develop and low-medium end to test in order to avoid this and optimize our code for speed on not-so-new hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is going to become a really problem for developers. As people upgrade, they don't simply throw the old iPads away. Some sell them, but others give them to their parents. And older people will keep technology around for a long time. My mother has my old 1st generation Kindle, which happens to work fine, and probably will keep using it for many years to come. The same will happen to the iPad 1 (and 2, etc.). They won't notice, or care about maps or Siri, but they will notice if Facebook stops working.

</comment><comment><USER34> By far the worst thing about this is there will never be an improved web browser on the iPad... ever. Because of Apple ridiculous aversion to altenate web browsers (that don't use the Safari engine) no third party will be able to deliver a new web browser.

Years from now the iPad 1 will still be using outdated HTML5 specs, and old version of the web socket protocol, and will never have new wen technologies added to it. Apple has ensured this device remains technologically frozen in time forever.

</comment><comment><USER35> As an iPhone 3G user previously, this is probably a very good thing. The iOS 4.0 update basically bricked the phone because it just couldn't handle it. I recently found out how easy it was to revert to 3.1.3 and its actually a pleasure to use again (albeit still noticeably slower than my 4S).

If Apple released iOS6 for the iPad 1 you would probably be bagging them out for making the device so slow.

<comment><USER36> Yes, Apple does seem to be between a rock and a hard place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'd be interested to see an iOS developer's perspective on when they're going to start requiring iOS 6. From a user's perspective, I don't see any features that are going to encourage devs to drop iOS 6 compatibility (eg. ARC; background support).

It's big these types of features and functionality that are going to determine the usefulness and longetivity of iOS 5.

</comment><comment><USER38> For me, my iPad 1 still makes a plenty good Instapaper/Kindle/email/writing/basic web/casual gaming device, and my only major hope is that developers like Marco don't drop iOS 5 support way too quick for their apps.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's been long enough now that we should all be learning something. If its a "1st Gen" product or doesn't have an "S" on the product name, ignore it..

</comment><comment><USER40> How did you get this? It's not even on <http://www.marco.org/> ?</comment>


The toughest creature on Earth has survived a trip into space - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/invertebrate-as.html <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=298876></comment>


Node.js: fast EXIF extraction without loading whole file into memory - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/titarenko/fast-exif <comment><AUTHOR> Recently, while writing a tool for photo import, I discovered that all libraries I was able to find on npm read _complete_ JPEG file into memory in order to extract EXIF. That's weird. So, here is module, which does not read everything to obtain EXIF. Maybe it will be useful for you, if you want to quickly process large photo sets, as so did I.</comment>


Bill de Blasio: Why American Workers Need to Be Protected from Automation - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/why-american-workers-need-to-be-protected-from-automation/ <comment><USER2> > my proposal would institute a "robot tax" on large companies that eliminate > jobs through increased automation

What is a "robot"?

When a nearby canal was being built, they used steam power rather than people power. The local workers were angry because they wanted the work.

The Luddites in the 180ss were rightly concerned about how automation was replacing jobs which had taken years of training, with no consideration for those who were now unemployed. Their movement has since been used - incorrectly, IMO - to mean those opposed to new technology simply because it's new technology.

Phil Ochs' "Automation Song" (1964):

      Oh I laid down your railroads, every mile of track
      With the muscles on my arm and the sweat upon my back
      And now the trains are rolling, they roll to every shore
      You tell me that my job is through, there ain't no work no more
      Though I laid down your highways all across the land
      With the ringing of the steel and the power of my hands
      And now the roads are there like ribbons in the sky
      You tell me that my job is through but still I wonder why

      For the wages were low and the hours were long
      And the labor was all I could bear
      Now you've got new machines for to take my place
      And you tell me it's not mine to share
      Though I laid down your factories and laid down your fields
      With my feet on the ground and my back to your wheels
      And now the smoke is rising, the steel is all a-glow
      I'm walking down a jobless road and where am I to go

Automation is everywhere.

Word processors and computers have replaced many secretarial jobs. (Have you worked for a company with a secretary pool? They used to be quite common.) Are those not robots displacing workers? Who pays?

I'm for UBI in part because it's much easier to justify universal support than to pick and decide each how each job is affected by automation.</comment>


Google Video removing videos? - <AUTHOR> http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=1233300&hl=en

<comment><USER2> That's a good move. YouTube to Google is more than enough for the world's "regular" video needs although the one hour length will be missed.</comment>


An Embarrassing Bug in Mac App Sandboxing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jmfd.me/an-embarrassing-bug-in-mac-app-sandboxing/

<comment><USER2> Sandboxing is utterly broken. If you want a real hellride try to load 'sandbox unsafe' Audio Units (read: every non-Apple AU, though many Apple AUs aren't safe either) into a sandboxed application.

There's a temporary entitlement that should allow this. The only problem is, that this entitlement simply disables sandboxing midway through app initialization and the NSUserDefaults system becomes unusable after that.

See last post in: <https://devforums.apple.com/thread/155950?tstart=0>

<comment><USER3> > _Sandboxing is utterly broken. If you want a real hellride try to load > 'sandbox unsafe' Audio Units (read: every non-Apple AU, though many Apple > AUs aren't safe either) into a sandboxed application._

How does that prove that sandboxing is broken, much less "utterly"? You should NOT be able to load unsafe AUs into a sandboxes application.

And I'm not sure "temporary entitlement" was developed to allow this kind of thing. Sounds like an abuse of it.

<comment><USER2> > I'm not sure "temporary entitlement" was developed to allow this kind of > thing. Sounds like an abuse of it.

The entitlement is called 'com.apple.security.temporary-excaption.audio-unit- host'.

<comment><USER3> LOL. In this case, it sounds like a really by-the-book use of it.

In also sounds like a kludge way to solve the AU sanboxing issue from Apple's part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought there was a way to report these issues to Apple without a public letter. Also, the use of "embarrassing" to describe an unfortunate bug makes this feel like a disingenuous PR stunt.

<comment><AUTHOR> We reported this to Apple (that's what the rdar:// link is for, to add to the Radar bug tracking system). The "embarrassing" perhaps stems from our frustration and months of dealing with similar issues, but is something that should have easily been uncovered if apple did dogfooding of the technology before forcing it on developers.

I wrote it up as more of a public service announcement to other Mac developers who might be encountering the same issue.

<comment><USER3> > _The "embarrassing" perhaps stems from our frustration and months of dealing > with similar issues, but is something that should have easily been uncovered > if apple did dogfooding of the technology before forcing it on developers._

The technology was obviously tested by Apple --they didn't just put something out there--, and it was also available for third party testers to test with the betas.

If nobody had found it at that point, why would Apple? Maybe it's not as common as you think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just report and it surely will get fixed. No need to call it out as "embarrassing". Especially not as an Software Developer yourself, like you never had any stupid bugs in your code, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've shipped plenty of embarrassing bugs in my days! And, had I shipped a bug that likely has to do with escaping characters improperly, I too would have been embarrassed by it. But beyond that, as someone who spent many years dealing with integration testing of Mac OS X, this is the type of bug that would make me cringe that our infrastructure was not setup to catch it.

<comment><USER6> All bugs are embarrassing. What one can only do is to argue whether it's a bug or a feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is really worded funny. It's not embarrassing to Apple if you post it. It's only embarrassing if they determine it to be embarrassing and as far as I am concerned this is an extremely small use case.

Also can you PLEASE stop saying HTML5. It's soo annoying. HTML5 IS HTML. It could be HTML3 the bug would still appear :)

<comment><USER8> How is this a small use case? I know a number of people including myself who have spaces in folder name, especially when trying to keep things organized (for example a folder in applications called Web Development would trigger this bug). For a company as large as Apple supporting an infrastructure as large as its app store this most definitely should have been caught long before release.

<comment><USER3> > _How is this a small use case? I know a number of people including myself > who have spaces in folder name_

If you know a lot of people, including yourself, that uses spaces in folder names

AND

none of them has seen this bug all this time with sandboxing, including tons of developers doing the early/beta testing of sandboxing

then IT IS a small use case.

<comment><USER8> I didn't say that I or the people I know use OSX. However I made the assumption that Linux and Windows users were similar enough to OSX users in the ways they organize their stuff. Putting the size of the use case aside, It just surprises me that something like this would make it into a production system supporting 10s of thousands of apps and number of which have spaces in their names.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > _Sandboxing is required by Apple to be on the Mac App Store. The technology > has caused us and our users grief, cost significant development time, and > likely lost our business users._

Maybe due to incompetence? On their part I mean.

For one, you are not required to be "on the Mac App Store". You can continue to sell your app outside of it. Heck, very successful apps are sold outside of it, from MS Office and Creative Suite to most of the stuff Rogue Amoeba does.

Second, tons of other apps seem to do just fine on the app store. What exactly makes your app an exception?

<comment><AUTHOR> We do distribute and sell independently of the Mac App Store, which allows us to offer trials, lets users to easily convert the trial to a licensed copy, and provide bulk or educational discounts. Even with that, ~80% of our revenue has come from the Mac App Store. Users want and expect software to be available on the Mac App Store; I'm sure the support volume we'd get by not being there would far outweigh any we've seen from this bug.

Sandboxing was a technology that did not exist (and therefore was not required) when we started selling on the Mac App Store. This came later, and became a requirement to push any updates containing features.

Lots of mac developers have complained publicly (or privately to me) about sandboxing. Many others have not been able to issue updates, removed major features, or simply removed their apps from the store. There's plenty of information on this on blogs or the developer forums, though many would not speak out publicly against the hand that feeds them. The apps that do well with sandboxing are naturally those which do the least. It would have been easier for us to neuter our app, but we've taken a strong approach to working through all the issues and avoided removing any major features. It would be unfortunate if innovation was sacrificed for security.

We originally planned to have our non-MAS copy not be sandboxed. This creates complications and other bugs for users when offering both versions based on how the sandbox container is maintained and that any bookmarks (aliases) kept cannot interoperate between the two. From all the tradeoffs we see, fully adopting sandboxing is the best option. But, that won't stop me from complaining about all the bugs!

<comment><USER3> Fair enough.

I might came off as a little harsh, but I've seen a lot of "X API is awful" posts before with little content besides some grips and one/two bugs" (which all APIs have).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone have a theory as to what may be causing this bug?

<comment><USER10> Some tokenization not working correctly?

I'm pretty sure this as to do with "TextEdit" being processed as "TextEdit" and "Text Edit" being processed as "Text" and "Edit" (and maybe neither "Text" nor "Edit" being allowed, while "Text Edit" is whitelisted but for whatever reason tokenization screwed up).

"Whitespace in filename/dirname" issues are typically tokenization issues in 3rd party scripts. Here it's probably related to some bogus lookup in some blacklist/whitelist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Huh, thought it was going to be a security vulnerability based on that title.

<comment><USER12> Let's wait for someone to find a vulnerability based on that bug then. Ideas, anyone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not commenting on the sandboxing but...

Writing _very_ strict coding guidelines and specs enforced at build time is a real time saver. For example we're using a script which verifies that all of the files/directories we've got control on are only using a subset of ASCII.

If you're a programmer working on the server-side, you have complete control on the naming of files.

Why is it a godsend to use such anal specs? Because _external_ utilities / scripts, on a variety of OSes, will work flawlessly on your files. Otherwise it's all too common to have quoting / escaping issues with this or that script / tool / utility not correctly dealing with space on this or that platform.

When you're forced to let the client pick filenames, things gets a bit trickier. But I still do advice very strict naming conventions for all the files that you have control upon.

Anyone not admitting that a space in a filename can be problematic hasn't been in this business long enough. _(Hint: the problem is not what you have control upon, but what you don't have control upon... And that very article is_ precisely* proving my point).

<comment><USER13> Exactly. Allowing end users to put spaces into end user document names is a fine feature. Allowing developers to do it is just dumb. There are far, far too many tools ( _really useful tools_ , if someone is tempted to argue this bit: please don't, you're simply wrong and I won't engage) out there that presume that path lists are split on whitespace.</comment></comment>


Russia hired 1,000 people to create 'fake news' in key US states during election - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html <comment><USER2> How many people were on Correct The Record's payroll again?</comment>


GoG.com is back - <AUTHOR> http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage/

<comment><AUTHOR> The whole thing was a publicity stunt. Personally, I hope it does them more harm than good, because I hate to see such cheap tactics be rewarded.</comment>


Thought experiment: why is texting more popular than email? - <AUTHOR>

I recently did business with a guy that uses email in essentially the same way most people use text.
We were working out the terms of a contract and it had the feel and immediacy of a typical text exchange.
I started thinking about how much better the tools are for email and how the two technologies essentially satisfy the same need.
What is it about texting that is superior to email?
Less spam. A higher expectation of immediacy. A much higher open and read rate.
But the tools for email are far more sophisticated.
What does it take to make the arguably superior technology capture the advantage that texting currently has? <comment><USER3> I find your example easy to relate to, as my wife uses email that way - <USER2> sometimes tease her that she's not getting charged by the word.

The difference between the two choices is the low mental overhead of texting. When you text, you can write a small amount of text, maybe include an emoji, or a picture. That's it/ You can't format the text, you don't want to write long paragraphs, and your other options are similarly limited. You just focus on the content because the wrapper is virtually non-existent.

SMTP-based email, by contrast, is a big messy ball of wax. Emails can be as complex as any other kind of business document - thousands of words, bullet points, headings, different fonts, multiple attachments, recipient lists, routing specifications...zzz.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've drawn a similar conclusion. The difference is primarily context. Because email is ubiquitous. Wouldn't solving the ux issues with email make for a killer app?</comment></comment>


Will coronavirus kill me (1% chance) - <AUTHOR> https://willcoronaviruskillme.com <comment><USER2> Does this answer yes on 1% of website loads?

While a fun little website, I think it would be helpful If you added some links to useful information at the bottom of the page.

1% is the broad statistic, but for people like me, this could actually kill me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly, the page has a 1% chance of displaying "YES". It is tough since age has so much to do with how severe the virus is. Ended up sticking with the broad statistic to keep it simple. Will add more info to the bottom later tonight though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> nice</comment>


Where are they? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing. - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20569/page1/

<comment><USER2> I have a sci-fi inspired theory that as a civilization advances, it modifies itself such that it's mental processing speed and speed of communication become faster. At a certain point, species at other speeds have less to offer and communicating would be impractical as emitting a signal at our speed would involve what would seem like eons of effort to them. Due to the speed discrepancies, they'd mainly prefer talking to themselves.

One way or another, the "sends radio waves into space hoping for contact" phase is probably very short. The possibilities for what phases come next are not all bad, but whatever the "usual" is, it probably doesn't involve sending radio waves out anymore. It's possible the next step is to evolve into something that wouldn't like talking to us very much. Maybe that's not bad.

<comment><USER3> Charles Stross explores a very similar thesis in _Accelerando_ (<http://www.accelerando.org>): the civilization needs such intensive bandwidth to continue functioning "normally" that the distance between galaxies is too large to support both the bandwidth required and intergalaxical expansion (it's been awhile since I read it, so correct me if the details are fuzzy).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Charles Pellegrino/George Zebrowski covers this in _The Killing Star_ (1995). They reason as follows:

      1. Any species will place its own survival before that of a different species.
      2. Any species that has made it to the top on its planet of origin will be
         intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.
      3. They will assume that the first two rules apply to us.

So any starfaring species might well destroy another starfaring species -- immediately. In _The Killing Star_ the aliens do so at the first opportunity with high-powered relativistic bombardment. The power that they use dwarfs that generated by asteroid impacts and past mass extictions. They blanket the entire hemisphere of planets with relativistic projectiles! The earth is taken out entirely in just two shots.

<http://sites.inka.de/mips/reviews/TheKillingStar.html>

<comment><USER2> It's an interesting theory, but advanced civilization is built on collaboration, not defection (aggression). Most things that lead to advances in civilization are based on collaboration: science, openness, sharing knowledge, rule of law, free trade, contracts.

I would argue the exact opposite--any species that makes it to the top of the food chain will likely have collaboration ingrained in their nature, and the more advanced, the greater their collaborative nature will be.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but we tend to collaborate with members of our own species and enslave/butcher/experiment on other species. Even our relationships with dogs and other family pets can be highly unequal and sometimes downright disturbing. (Treating them as chattel, "putting them to sleep" when it's more convenient to do so.) So this counts against your position in two ways: 1) our only data point indicates that interspecies collaboration is likely to be less than cozy 2) others might observe our treatment of other species and use that to evaluate our potential for hostility.

Also, our record with regards to polluting our own environment doesn't recommend us highly as "good citizens of the galaxy." (This was brought up as a possibility in David Brin's Sundiver series.)

And this isn't even considering the vast differences in culture and even basic mental models there will likely be. It's far from a sure bet that this openness will extend to us.

Also, one can readily imagine how a "innocuous" act from the point of view of one species might be considered a greivous crime by another. (The Ender's Game books are one example.)

<comment><USER2> I don't think we're highly advanced, so we have 0 data points from a highly advanced species.

Collaboration leads to advancement and that trend applies to higher levels of advancement than we are at. For example, imagine there was no war. Trillions of dollars of economic activity could instead be directed toward, say, curing cancer. The more collaborative a society, the farther and faster it can advance. Learning from another species (thanks for the cool warp drive tips, Xarcon!) is a type of collaboration that offers benefits that a species doesn't get following the approach in the parent post. So, as a matter of policy, extending the openness to other species can be sound strategy.

The rest of what you're saying is not really related to my argument, which was focused solely on the "personality" of highly advanced species.

<comment><USER4> How many data points do you have for saying we're not "highly advanced?" I should not have said "highly advanced" and should just have said "sentient interstellar" instead. My discussion is about the future of humanity, not the present day. We are not quite even space-faring yet.

Learning from another species' technology is likely to be a largely one-way transaction. Instead of trading warp drive tips, it's much more likely that the "Xarcon" will have warp drive and we will not. (Or vice-versa.) In any case, if the other side has things like antimatter fueled starships, they may still have the potential to wipe out the other civilization, or at least preemptively cause huge damage to it. Why would another intelligent species give up a potential technological advantage without first assuring the safety of their own species? Of course, there are many ways of assuring such safety. In the case of practical warp drive, one way of doing this would be to withhold warp technology and use the intervening time to propagate your own species. Another option might be to absorb the less advanced species into some sort of confederation. Actually, a really savvy species would do both!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think I just found a possible alternative explanation, which given the odds might actually be very probable: there is one situation in which aliens might not want to show themselves to us. That is, if we are an experiment that their interference would mess up. Perhaps they are just studying some sociology and evolution theory with earth. We already are the result of the "von Neumann probe".

We are not seeing any other aliens because our creators (not god, but some aliens) are so powerful that they destroyed them or kept them away.

Well, just a random thought I had after reading the article.

<comment><USER6> Maybe the idea of messing with anything interesting is unthinkable. If you were very advanced the only thing interesting would be stuff that originated elsewhere (and mathematics). The thought of "contaminating" it would be immoral. Even terraforming a lifeless planet or moon would seem like a waste as you would be destroying information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They became smaller. Found a galaxy in every atom and started colonizing them. Life on the micro-level is fun because the speed of light is relatively huge.

They became faster. Foreseeing the heat depth of the universe, they invented a way to squeeze an eternity of subjective time into a second of real time, and stayed there. Or turned around in time. Or started oscillating back and forth in the same time interval.

They invented wish control, eliminated the survival instinct and went extinct.

They contacted God and ascended.

<comment><USER8> They became dumber, could no longer understand the technology that was keeping them alive, and died out.

Really, the only reason we are as intelligent as we are is because intelligence turned out to be helpful for survival. But that same intelligence lets us defeat our own survival instincts (which is why we have obesity, drug addiction, and porn). This suggests that for continued survival, either our instincts must become stronger than our intellects or our intellects must become weaker than our instincts -- both of which lead to the same place: exhaustion of resources before we actually accomplish anything.

(Disclaimer: I recently rented "Idiocracy".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Possible filters:

1\. The singularity. (Though that begs the question: Why wouldn't robots be observable? Perhaps they exist at a largely "virtual" level, as code, even as they replace life.)

2\. Dysgenics, aka, Idiocracy. At some point, it may be evolutionarily advantageous to _not_ become more advanced. This is certainly true at present, on average, though the distribution of intelligence is becoming bimodal. The actual filter might ultimately involve a great genocide by Morlock-esque creatures.

3\. Gamma ray bursts. Could wipe out millions of civilizations all at once.

4\. Ice nine. This is the author's suggestion, basically. Some sudden discovery that wipes out humanity too quickly for us to recover.

....certainly, the author is correct in observing that there are no intelligent aliens, nor could they hide themselves unless they purposefully disabled every radio transmitter for the duration of their hiding.

ED: The wiki article is actually pretty good: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox>

</comment><comment><USER10> I've thought about this issue in the past and have a similar view to the author's, forgive me if it's a little bit childish:

I believe that in order to develop space technology a species(let's call it that) has to be technologically advanced but in order to be technologically advanced the specieshas to be innovative and competitive.

But competition is the trait that can cause conflict and wars so any species that has the capability to colonize foreign worlds also has the ability to annihilate itself.

Thus I have this idea that every species that has been able to get this technology has killed itself off. It's a morbid view but just an idea that I have.

What I like to think is that we are getting more and more in line with nature and less and less pugnacious so at one point maybe we'll get along with the world - hopefully these advanced aliens have reached that point.

<comment><USER11> Surely the path towards becoming technologically advanced also requires cooperation in addition to competition. These two processes tend to hold one another in balance nicely and yield results. I don't see any clear evidence that suggests one or the other of those two processes will "win out" long term. But if anything it seems humans have become more cooperative over time in step with our technological advancement.

Assuming "competition" and ONLY the negative consequences of the competitive process somehow trump all else, in particular cooperation, is depressing, counterproductive and inconsistent with what I've seen in my own life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If we are the only ones, I find that incredibly scary. We are incredibly more precious than we thought. The fate of all intelligent life rests on this one tiny speck.

I, for one, hope that we aren't the only ones, because if we fail, then its all over. If there are more, intelligence will be able to carry on.

</comment><comment><USER13> The only real paradox on this matter is that UFOs are systematically out ruled as the expected manifestation of ETs.

There is apparently a prejudice on what an ET manifestation should or might be. If there is no match, people mistakenly conclude that ET don't exist instead of calling back into question their assumptions on what an ET manifestation should be.

Most reasoning about ET naively project humans constrains or interests on them as well as our rationale. This is quite naive.

The author suggest filters, I suggest barriers.

The most important barrier is interstellar travel which requires to be able to collect energy somehow during the travel (i.e. from dark matter) or the be able to completely freeze any activity and energy spending on board during the travel (i.e. as do plant seed) and using the destination sun as energy source to trigger to reactivation.

When a civilization has reached this stage, he most probably has become independent of the need to be on firm ground like an earth or so. He will be much more comfortable in a fully artificial, customized and big enough space ship. What I mean to say is that their constrains may be totally different than what we may expect based on our experience.

From this perspective I assume the real value (St Graal) is scientific and engineering knowledge and mastering, and for this, if avoiding direct contact and obvious manifestation can simplify the task, they'll do it.

We have no idea on their constrains, their knowledge and how humans are positioned regarding it.

There are enough facts and data on UFOs however to learn and deduce things about their technology. (i.e. electro magnetic propulsion, very intense magnetic fields, supra conductive vehicle shell at room temperature and above, protecting against magnetic field, etc...). These are not just speculations, there are hard facts justifying them. (i.e light polarization due to intense EM field around the UFO made visible on a photograph), etc.

Apparently very few people really take the time to investigate objectively and in detail the data at hand and the hard facts.

<comment><USER3> > The most important barrier is interstellar travel which requires to be able > to collect energy somehow during the travel (i.e. from dark matter) or the > be able to completely freeze any activity and energy spending on board > during the travel (i.e. as do plant seed) and using the destination sun as > energy source to trigger to reactivation.

There is also the possibility of wormhole travel/other spacetime exotics...

<comment><USER13> Yes. But their existence, and validity as traveling technique, are still to be proved.

The plant seed, or bacteria spore, analogy invalidates the claim that inter stellar travel is impossible for living bodies. Inter stellar travel is thus possible, even without energy source available on the way.

We also have to call back in question our assumptions on how a contact would happen and how the ET would look like.

The abduction data is on this aspect very interesting because no one could have predicted such a contact scenario. Note that I don't pretend it's true, but the thing is that there is a striking piece of evidence on this subject which out rules the theory of false memory. It is the Betty Hill star map that Joachim Koch recognized as to be our solar system. This interpretation makes much more sense than other interpretation for multiple reasons and the killing detail in it is that Betty has drawn in 1962 a ring around Jupiter and the ring was only discovered by Voyager 1 in 1979 !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What difference would it make if there _were_ extraterrestrial life?

How would an advanced Alien intelligence view human beings, who exploit and slaughter intelligent life around them on a daily basis, including other human beings, and helpless animals who they raise under torturous conditions and then dismember while conscious in order to consume them -- needlessly, as our physiology does not require animal products.

Not to mention the warmongering, as the majority of the U.S. public supported war -- as long as it seemed convenient. No anti-war stance on principle for most U.S. citizens, bogglingly, especially after the lessons of Vietnam.

A lack of human rights or environmental laws in the most populous country on Earth.

Widespread environmental destruction, wiping out forests and ecosystems all over the globe.

I don't think Aliens would be too impressed with humanity in general, including SETI researchers who retire to the cafeteria for a nice plate of murdered intelligent being on a daily basis.

<comment><USER15> The remarkable thing about humans is that we're even vaguely concerned about environmental destruction. Out of millions of species, we're the only one that is. So what makes you think that extraterrestrial species we encounter are likely to care more than we do?

<comment><USER16> It seems that most people aren't concerned with environmental description per se, but rather how that destruction might affect their own lives. So really it's just self preservation and self interest, which isn't much different from other animals.

<comment><USER17> right, but raising another sentient being in terrible conditions just to slaughter and eat it might be considered a universal bad.

say an alien civilization comes along and is as far beyond us as we are beyond cows. I think we'd raise some objections if they started eating us, even though it is logically sound.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> <http://www.exitmundi.nl> is a great collection of the Great Filter candidates.

</comment><comment><USER19> Nick mentions Environment Disaster as a possible existential risk, but perhaps the environment is a more mundane and yet still 'Great Filter' that befalls expansionist civilisations.

What if the resources required to leave the home planet (including here the resources required for generations of technological steps to reach that point) are more than an Earth-like planet can sustain? In other words, of necessity or as close to it as probability allows, intelligent life must destroy the sustainability of its home planet before it achieves the technology capable of leaving it.

Of course, by leaving it I'm talking on the scale required to explore and interact with neighbouring solar systems, not just sending Voyager 1 out there with a picture on its side.

</comment><comment><USER20> If we're going to posit extraterrestrial life, I'd view the fact that they've stayed hidden from us as a de facto sign of intelligence. "Smart enough to stay the fuck away" sounds like a good start, to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was Bill Watterson's theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I believe that the author makes one fundamental mistake: Assuming that there is one great filter, and that its common across all civilizations. It seems to me there are a large number of filters, some of which applied (to dinosaurs, for example). Some filters may cause end of all life (on earth), some others may simply eradicate all human life..

Either way, on a cosmic scale, all this is beyond our control (I'd worry about the sun going nova some day, but I have more pressing things to do), so not much point worrying about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think there's another possibility: advanced civilizations exist, but since they're not malevolent (if they were, we wouldn't exist by now), their ethics prohibit "disturbing" us in the slightest bit, including via the knowledge that there are others out there. So they take care to camouflage themselves when they visit.

<comment><USER12> Why? What possible reason could a benevolent race have for not helping us?

<comment><USER22> They are so far above us that they don't notice our existence.

<comment><USER12> That's absurd. We would notice any intelligent society, no matter how primitive.

<comment><USER22> I guess what I'm trying to say is that advanced civilizations aren't necessarily intelligent or conscious, at least how we define it. Something could be self-replicating on an energy level much beyond us without being particularly observant.

<comment><USER12> Benevolence seems to be something our species is trending toward, and is in someway required as part of the foundation for civilization. As such, I think its reasonable to believe that conscious or any derivatives thereof would be concerned with the welfare of less advanced beings.

<comment><USER22> >Benevolence seems to be something our species is trending toward

Definitely

>and is in someway required as part of the foundation for civilization

I disagree. The foundation of a civilization is energy and how much energy a civilization can use. See the Kardashev scale: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale>

I'm trying to say that something could exist that is so fundamentally different from us that it really doesn't care about our existence. Right now, the biggest organisms on earth are fungi. There are some truly enormous fungi. Imagine a fungus or set of fungi that start converting radiation directly to mass for itself to grow. It could expand to surround its local sun. In certain ways, this fungus is more advanced than us, but it would eat us alive without noticing it was doing anything wrong, because it isn't capable of having the thought required to have morality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not sure if Marconi or Tesla could detect WiMax signals. Of course, that's only 100 years, no telling what a thousand or a million years of tech could hide in the EM spectrum.

Also, stuff like nanopond makes me want to think self replication is easier than he's making it out to be.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think that finding extraterrestrial life would challenge many of the worlds popular religions. Take Christianity for example. How will Christians interpret Genesis after the discovery of life on other planets? Was Christ sent to other planets as well?

<comment><USER25> Most Christians who've actually thought of their faith, (admittedly, that's few and far between) have most certainly already reconciled their beliefs with this subject. Off the top of my head, I'd imagine a reconciled Christian would say:

1\. Aliens are not in the Bible, but nothing says they don't exist. 2\. The Bible is God's message to man, and surely the Aliens will have their own message from the same God. (Actually, considering the similarities of Earth's religions, wouldn't that be something?) I digress.

Point being, the search for God will continue forever. It's part of human nature, and is ultimately an unknowable equation. Even with a thousand known species, people will ask why we are, and that can often lead to "because you were made to be".

I think it's foolish to expect a mass awakening on the discovery of ET. It's not going to happen. You'll have a few that will alter their beliefs, a few that will go wacko (thinking crazy white haired dude from Contact here) and everyone else will just ponder it for a while and carry on.</comment></comment>