Slashdot Mirror


Planetary System Similar to Sol Discovered

Anonymous Coward writes: "The Washington Post is carrying its own copy about a planetary system very similar to Sol in the Big Dipper. 47 Ursae Majoris has at least two large gas giants in circular orbits, similar to many of Sol's satellites, and the possibility exists for smaller, currently undetectable rocky planets closer to the primary. Circular orbits are less common than highly elliptical orbits, and are more promising. Read the whole article to find out why."

321 comments

  1. Re:killing serious discussion by On+Lawn · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Whoa! Lots of fun tonight for you isn't it.

    Lets see, where to start. Oh yeah I liked this one...

    You obviously have not understood the point of moderation points

    Yeah, but the great slashcode god keeps giving them to me anyway. I hope some day that it will be proud of my decisions and I will be justified for my actions. In the mean time, Angry evil half-step-brother of slashcode named Anonymous Coward is displeased with such actions. [you sense a struggle between Slashcode and Anonymous Coward, you feel the power of Anonymous Coward decrease.]

    What else did I like, oh yeah right before it...

    You say that it is I who does not understand before posting, but it is you who continues to insist that moderation downwards is a more important task than moderating upwards.

    Am I missing something? Those seem to be unrelated points and the latter is totaly unsupported and false. I don't know that I need to compare you to a black hole, but on your second point, the moderator guidelines do mention that it is better to mod up than down. That is why I think the informative posts deserve top billing.

    I've said it before but I'll put it even more plainly. I'm for moderating up good posts. I'm for moderating up funny posts, they are good. I'm just for moderating up informative posts becuase they are usefull and good. Sometimes its just unfortunate that a moderation cap gets in the way.

    You keep wanting to say that I want to mod people down in some superiority trip. Indeed ascribing evil motives to personal choices is one step away from admitting you have no intelligent input. That step is just realizing it for yourself first.

    In fact you never mention a good reason why funny posts should rate as high as intelligent posts, did you. I waited but all I got was some personal slander, misrepresentation of actions and not even someone to stand behind the comments.

    You tried to re-enforce your misrepresentation with redundancy by repeating the first sentance twice even though I showed it false, twice. Is this what I'm supposed to accept as lucid argument? Keep saying it but won't make it true.

    Moderating on slashdot is one thing. Making life changes to value systems is another, and I'll need real reasons to do that. I don't think I should change because some AC thinks such actions are a superiority complex, or the result of a vacious mind. If you can't understand what is going on, why should I listen to you?

    Let me end with this one, its classic brown-boxing...

    Do you feel that only those posts that you deem important are *real*?

    All posts are *real*. Some are just real stupid, some are real clever, some are real useless and some are real informative. Not all posts are created equal. And yes, I moderate accordingly according to my own value judgement. Do you not moderate by your own judgement system? If not, what value system do you use to moderate?

    I've had plenty of people complain about things that I do. Your not the first, you are not even the first to complain about something I do that everyone else does.

    I like constructive criticism, I appreciate diversity of thought and even seek it out. In the end, I give you the same challenge I give anyone else who doesn't like what I'm doing.

    If you can show me something better to do, I'll do it. It's what we call being open minded, but that means you actually have to come up with reasoning. I'm here to tell you that if all your going to do is complain (and all you have done is complain) then it will fall on deaf ears. Theres too much to life to stop and listen to someone who is just a critic.

  2. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In ten years, we may find planetary systems VERY common. Neither you or I can argue either way, at this point.

    Planetary systems like ours (stable, relatively circular orbits) appear to be less common than would be expected even when taking the bias of the observational method into account. This is based upon data, not "we don't know for sure so it must be".

    Now take into account that the distances between MOST stars are extremely hard to comprehend.

    Agreed, but irrelevant to this discussion.

    To suggest that "sentient" (bad word in my opinion, should have used self actualized or something) could only have arisen after half the known universe's time is strange. Half the known universe's time would be 6 billion years old. We haven't even found human remains that date back 6 MILLION.

    The original poster's comment was based upon published (admittedly speculative) work, and the issue of metal abundance is complex and beyond my own scope of expertise, but I've seen a significant amount of discussion about it. It's hardly fair to just dismiss it.

    Also, to suggest that all other life-forms, sentient or not, would have to follow Earths path is even sillier. That would be like suggesting I know for a fact that other life forms would have two eyes, breathe oxygen, etc...when we have just recently found bacteria living in space, on comets, asteroids etc..and that our deep oceans are teeming with life under unbelievable pressures, where there is never any light, they feed off of minerals spewing from extremely hot fissures. We are finding life occuring in the most extreme places, floating in space, falling to earth... It is very easy for me to comprehend an intelligent life form developing MILLIONS of years prior to our own somewhere else in this extremely vast universe. To say otherwise would be admitting that you think you know what the universe offers by looking at our own, non-descript, medium sized planet in a section of our non-descrpit galaxy, one of billions, in the universe that would be the equivelent to an electron in a piece of substance making up a grain of sand on ONE of the Earths beaches, which would again, be plain silly.

    The selective nature of when people are willing to accept what the history of life on Earth means for life in the Universe in general never fails to amuse me. We know life got a foothold here pretty quickly, and everyone is willing to grab on to that as evidence that life is abundant everywhere. On the other hand, when the history of life indicates something we don't like, everyone is quick to jump up yelling "N=1!, N=1!".

    The history of life on Earth is by no means irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It is currently our only data point from which to draw inferences. A biased sample, to be sure, but the only one we have. From a purely parsimonious standpoint we must assume that Earth is not atypical until evidence indicates otherwise. We have evidence that life exists and develops in this manner. Speculating about other ways is fun and informative, but it's still just Science Fiction unless informed by hard data.

    That sentient, technological intelligence exists here tells us nothing about how likely it is in the Universe. We must exist on a world in which it developed, or else we wouldn't be here discussing it (and I'm no fan of the Anthropic Principle, btw, but the basic point still holds). This would be true whether or not it's common.

    What we can say for certain is that in the case of this one planet the development of sentient, technological intelligence appears to exist at the very tip of a sequence of incredibly unlikely events. Bacterial worlds are stable on the timescale of billions of years. We know this to be true from our single data point. Complex multicellular life can exist for geological stretches of time without ever developing intelligence or even a nervous system - we know this to be true from the case of plants, fungi, and animals. There appears to be no imperative driving the evolution of species who can make toaster ovens.

    Saying that "anything" can happen out there seems strange to me - every other system in the Universe exists within constraints and tradeoffs imposed by physics, thermodynamics, basic chemistry, etc. Life here tells us a great deal about what those kinds of constraints may be - but of course nobody will know for a long time.

    I apologize, it's just that your thinking of the universe seems very squeezed and shrink wrapped, when it's (the known univers) in fact extremely vast, and even uncomprehendible by most people.

    He was making inferences about something we don't know based upon what we do know. It ain't romantic, but that's science.

  3. Re:(ShorterDays == BetterEngineers) ? PHB : Engine by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1


    "Nope, tighter orbits would mean shorter years. The spin period is the length of the day. "

    Yep, you're right. They're great engineers because they meet the schedule even though the years are shorter. So I guess engineers on short term projects are no better, just the ones who measure in man-years rather than man-months. Fredrick Brooks would be proud! It turns out though, that though the variable was mis-named it still serves the 'year' function. The error is merely semantic, you see. 8^}

    Cheers,

    Zero__Kelvin

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  4. Re:Earth, quite unique by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    Your calculations are all on the ball for the solar system, but you're looking at the results of something astonomers still don't fully understand - the birth of the solar system.
    For all we know, every time there's a dust cloud with size > X and < Y, there will be exactly 9 planets with exactly a 4/9 chance of terrestrial planets, 1/2 chances of being in the life zone, 1/63 chance of a significantly sized moon, etc. People who quote statististics on the likelihood of alien life are working with too many unknowns - I've heard estimates ranging from 1/4 to 1/universe.

    Back to the subject line though, sure, Earth's unique - just about everything out there is, but the question is if there's a planet that could support life. Until there's more information on the statistics involved (statistics that can probably only be achieved through the study of other solar systems), there's no way to quantify the likelihood of life.

  5. Re:Earth, quite unique by LMCBoy · · Score: 1
    You're joking, right? You refute my claim that these calculations are speculative with numbers that are based on?.....pure, 200-proof speculation. The mind boggles.

    Even taking your most empirical probability, that 4/9 planets are terrestrial. This is pure speculation, because we have no idea how typical our solar system is. The rest of your numbers either suffer from the same reliance on a single known instance from a pool of billions, or from an assumption about what life requires (life needs a large moon? How do you know that?) Life on Earth probably started around hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean; why not add plate tectonics to your list of speculations?

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  6. Re:Why look? by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

    Even in this case, the light is only moving at the speed of light, the information dosen't travel any faster.

    The concept of molecular bifrucation communication is hardly useless. The basic concept is that when certain sub-atomic particles, when split off of their original Atom, exhibit an amazing property: when you change the spin of one, the spin of the other reverses -instantaniously-, faster than light. That is to say, not only was the time between the two changes in spin -unobservable-, it was -definately- longer than the amount of time it took to project a beam of light from one to the other.

    Instantanious communication is ultimately useless?

    Hardly.

  7. Re:While you're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone thinks differently - not everyone thinks that. I think that we evolved to be aware of ourselves. Being part of this universe, our growth and exploration is the universe slowly discovering itself.

  8. Teflon is arguably hateful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anybody can demonstrate a Scriptural justification for Teflon, go ahead. Until then, I'll stick with straight cast-iron, thank you very much. Jiminy christmas

  9. Re:Why look? by Ramshackle · · Score: 1
    There are a lot of things that happen faster than light. You can even demonstrate one to yourself right now. Go outside. Shine a flashlight into the sky and sweep it back and forth. At some point Out There, your spot of light will be moving from side to side faster than the speed of light. Do the geometry if you want to figure out how far away that is.

    This is completely misleading and incorrect. I actually thought of this in high school physics class and asked my father (a physics professor about this) about it...

    The part that you're making an incorrect assumption about is the fact that the spot is not actually an entity capable of moving. All you're seeing is a grouping of photons bouncing off atmosphere and returning to your retina. As you swing the flashlight across the sky at ever-quicker speeds, less and less photons compose that "spot".

  10. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always use my moderator points to moderate down all +5 funny comments because information and insights are more valuable than comedy

    So instead of giving a help up for informational and insightful comments, you slap down funny ones? How stupid is that? Someone's just going to come along and mod it back up. Then someone's going to kill you in Metamod.

    Hardly a productive way of going about it, don't you think?

  11. Re:killing serious discussion by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    it is funny, but I'm glad the previous poster pointed out what he did.

    However much it kills my karma, I always use my moderator points to moderate down all +5 funny comments because information and insights are more valuable than comedy.

    Well, the occasional Simpson-quality post that is insightful and put in a funny way I leave alone.

  12. Re:Too bad by norton_I · · Score: 2

    I believe such a satelite would probably be tide locked, so that one side always faced the gas giant, and the other either faced the sun, or away.

    It seems to me that a thicker-than-earth greenhouse gas layer would help out the problem a lot.

    Of course, you have to be far enough away from the planet to not get your atmospher sucked away.

  13. Re:Attention: by Steeltoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tell that to Jon Johansen in Norway who contributed in making DeCSS.

    - Steeltoe

  14. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had the power I'd mod you up. You're clearly familiar with the unpleasant implications of all the latest work in astrobiology, astronomy, and evolutionary theory.

    There is a bit of a conspiracy of silence on this topic, I believe. Certainly you won't get very far with many (not all) of the SETI people by bringing the deeply nonconvergent nature of sentient, technological intelligence up with them. I've tried. It can get unpleasant.

    What I suspect, personally, is that Earth may afford us a glimpse into the relative likelihood of our type of intelligence, to a least of first-order approximation. Life seems to have sprung up pretty easily, but was then stuck stably in prokaryotic mode for a couple billion years. An apparently singular event led to the origin of eukaryotes (details are a bit unclear, and it may have been coincident with and even dependant upon the origins of mitochondrial endosymbiosis, and was likely closely linked with the timing of single event that led to plastid endosymbiosis as well). Anyway, call that about 1 chance in 2 billion for the origin of the kind of informational complexity needed to form a base for "higher" organisms.

    Multicellularity? Arose convergently roughly 7 to 11 times in the following 2 billion years. Multicellularity on a scale to produce really complex organisms only 3 times. Nervous system? Purely singular origin from the base of the animal kingdom. Technological sentience? One time, within the past few tens of thousands of years, despite well over half a billion years (even as much as a billion, depends on lots of stuff still under debate) of animal evolution.

    The problem with this kind of calculation is so obvious that it barely needs to be stated: N=1. All I'm saying is that I suspect we're probably not an atypical case drawn from the galactic distribution. Time will tell, but if this kind of probability distribution holds up, then even if we had billions of life-bearing worlds to choose from we'd still be pretty damn lucky to hit one that had radio telescopes and shopping malls.

  15. Please let me ignore your funny comments by jfr · · Score: 1

    I am very surprised at the low score this line of suggestions gets. Moreover it's been ignored by slashcode developpers so far. Isn't the following principle obvious ? Humor should not be imposed I suppose that's the reason for the funny flag in slashcode. That flag is quite useless without filtering capabilities. PS : I like fun, less so at work.

  16. Re:Why look? by jwhyche · · Score: 0

    us:Hi them:a/s/l ? us: /ignore them

    Well we can stop looking then because I talked to them last night.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  17. What SETI doesn't want you to know... by hackus · · Score: 1

    Here are some things to think about.

    1) The age of the Universe is estimated to be about 12-14 billion years old.

    2) Earth has existed for about half that time and in all that time, through billions of years of Evolution, only ONE species has emerged sentient.

    Half the lifetime of the known Universe, and on one planet, it took about half that time to make ONE species remotely sentient on earth, with BILLIONS of years to try, "eveolution" or whatever the process is you want to call it, got it right once and only once.

    Sentient life, it would seem is pretty RARE. In fact, it would seem even in the most IDEAL conditions, such as Earth, it takes a HUGE amount of time to develop.

    This is a very very BAD thing. Continue reading on to find out why.

    3) We now know, that our Sun is NOT an ordinary star. How do we know that? Because we do spectroscopic studies and we can know the composition of nearby star systems, with no guess work.

    These studies reveal that 80 percent of most stars, many of them are not candidates for worlds that would require life. They end up:

    4) Having poor amounts of metal content. No metals means it is highly unlikely the star will be stable over its lifetime. Metals it would seem moderate the stars nuclear reactions, and keeps it radiating energy with very little variation of its lifespan.

    This finding is relatively new, thanks to Linux Beowulf clusters. :-) (Well that and the defense department....get to that later.)

    5) Stars that lack Metal cannot have formed from clouds of intergalactic material that contain any amount of heavy metals by definition. Why is that significant? It is significant because without heavy metals, planets, specifically rocky planets won't form around these stars. What you get is heavy Gas giant's like Jupitor or Saturn.

    6) Doesn't look good so far and it gets very much worse I am afraid. It turns out that a galaxy is a very very hostile place to live in.

    So what you say? It can't be that dangerous we are here? Right?

    Yes, but consider this. You have heard arguments that there are billions and billions of stars in our galaxy....yadda yadda yadda=life should be everywhere and lets give another billion to SETI to find it.

    7) No, I am afraid not my friends. You see the Sun and WHERE it is located is also VERY important, in our galaxy. You see those big dust clounds obscuring the core of our galaxy on a clear night called the Milky way? Consider them a security shield. In addition we are 2/3rd or more on the way out towards the outer middle of what we presume to be one of our galaxies arms. Very very far from the galactic core.

    I won't get into the complete details, but the galaxy is a very very VERY dangerous place to live anywhere near the core.

    Why is this important? It is important because the closer you move towards the center of our galaxy, the less likely you will have Stars that are stable for long periods, that do not expose thier accompanied planets (if any) to the extreme pasturizing effects of the galactic core, and dense stellar neighborhood. By definition, these populations of stars as one moves towards the center of the galaxy CANNOT be habitable because they have more materials available to them and are very large, have short life spans, and violently blow themselves up, along with the planets they carry, if any remember!

    Short lifetime stars we know, cannot provide enough time for life to evolve to sentient states if the earth is any example, it took HALF the lifetime of the KNOWN UNIVERSE to produce ONE species.

    Location, Location, Location. There may be billions and billions of stars, but it really doesn't matter. Most of them are not suitable, and we can prove that. It would seem, that a narrow band exists that goes around our galaxy that provides a habital region for the development of life. Very similair to the habital region around our own star, where luckily, earth is currently located, and I exist to type this!

    So, no, life just can't pop up ANYWHERE in our galaxy and more than likey it can ONLY pop up in a very narrow field or band around a galaxy.

    Each galaxy, should have its own band or habital region of stability where sentient life could evolve.

    8) Oh my, and then we have the observations of a naturalist I am a fan of, Mr. Stephen J Gould. A quote from Mr. Gould:

    "Sentient life has occurred in only one species over billions of years of life on this planet. It is not at all clear if this is a survival trait, as so many have put forth. Dinosaurs and thier kind ruled this planet quite successfully for 100's of millions of years and they didn't need intelligence at all, and in fact did quite well without it. Far better than we have and we have only been around for about 100 thousand or so years. In fact, long term, one could argue that sentient intelligence is a negative survival trait and actually hurts a species long term survival."

    I could not agree more. We have debates that long term, with Nuclear Bombs in suitcases available now for your local nut case, intelligence is probably not a good thing if you are a life form and want to be here, or your decendents, 100 million years from now.

    9) It gets even worse with current research comming down the pipe my friends, and well, then we have SETI and thier Radio antenna.

    Stupid.

    Why?

    This is my opinion of course, given our current observations and understanding of how life works and why another billion should not go to SETI in the future, they already spent a Billion, with ZERO results, and I think it speaks volumes about current research into life at the moment.

    Any life that has survived as long as it has on Earth, and develops sentient life forms, you have to understand, will not use Radio waves for communication. The time spans we are talking about are so enourmous, that the civilization we are looking for either has either died a long time ago or is so advanced, our preconcieved notions about what sorts or kinds of travel with our pitiful little science books, is at a child like understanding at best. If they do have those solutions, they won't use radio waves to communicate, it would take too long to manage a galactic empire on that scale.

    They won't, Oh God, another DUMB idea, use lasers either. Stupid, idiotic, and DUMB.

    Which is why SETI after plowing through about a billion dollars now, hasn't found DINGY.

    And they won't find what they are looking for.

    10) Now, during this whole discussion I point out why SENTIENT life is probably not very wisespread . Certainly not enough widepread to devote anothe r billion dollars to SETI to look for it.

    I by no means, claim there is not life out there. I bet we find life in our general vacinity in our part of the galactic neighborhood because it would seem we are in a fine part of town, the Earth and the Sun. We probably will find life, or possibly hints that it at one time existed outside Earth.

    I believe life is very resiliant and if given the right conditions, will spring up.

    I don't claim to know why, but if it happened here, it can happen again someplace else nearby. Life has survived some enourmous catastrophes on this planet we call earth in the past, so it must be rather resilient and not easy to snuff out.

    But given this series of arguments, I believe life is not as wide spread as we believe. What IS neat about this new evidence is it allows us to focus more of our searches, instead of what SETI is doing just pointing an antenna up in the air and waiting for a signal in any direction.

    These are things SETI doesn't want you to know, and given what we know already, I would LOVE to see that money put to taming space for economic and peaceful uses.

    We may disagree about SETI, but I bet we dont' disagree that having all of our eggs in one basket with nuts running around today and people killing each other, we should probably put a human outpost OFF OF THE PLANET. Just so we don't become a layer in the fossil record just like the dinosaurs.

    Because that is something we CAN prevent and is a very very REAL danger every day.

    Certainly a better investment than another billion for great screen savers, which is about what SETI is, in my opnion.

    -hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. My emotions were getting the better of me. Consider me chastised and repentant.

    2. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by LMCBoy · · Score: 1
      It's clear that you made most of this rant up. Time to fight misinformation....

      2. We don't know that sentient life is RARE. It's very possible, but it's difficult to extract our experience on one planet to the rest of the Universe, don't you think? Even if sentient life is RARE, why is that necessarily a BAD thing? If we're the only ones, then that makes us pretty important, in some sense.

      3. The Sun is a rather ordinary star. Yes, it is more metal-rich than the average star in our galaxy, but not by much. There are many millions of stars in the Milky Way that are reasonably similar to our beloved Sol.

      4. Low metal content does not make a star "unstable" in any way. Heavy elements do not significantly regulate fusion reactions. If anything, they cause a lower burning efficiency, which would make a star burn hotter, which would make its lifetime shorter. There are no stars with "No metals"; all stars have at least some component of heavy elements. Finally, not to nitpick, but stars form from interstellar material, not intergalactic material.

      6. This bit of misinformation is why I just had to reply. Ahem...
      SETI isn't using ANY taxpayer money. None. Several years ago a republican congressman beat his chest about the millions (NOT billions, as you slander) of dollars we were pissing away on little green men, so all federal funding of SETI was ended. They continue operations today on grants from private foundations (Notably, the Packard foundation).

      7. The Sun is NOT in a special part of the galaxy. Yes, it is shielded from the harmful radiation at the galaxy center, but so is much of the Milky Way disk, where over 90% of the Mily Way's stars are. Stars do not get more massive as you move toward the galactic center. I have no idea where you get that from.

      You seem to know everything about ET (even though he can't possibly exist). You know he won't use radio, and he won't use lasers. I bet he won't use ALL CAPS, either.

      Bottom line: nobody has any idea how rare life in the universe is, much less how rare sentience is. Anyone who claims they know how rare life is is lying, or "DUMB". Which are you?

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    3. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottom line: nobody has any idea how rare life in the universe is, much less how rare sentience is. Anyone who claims they know how rare life is is lying, or "DUMB". Which are you?

      This relates to my initial point above. Attempts to think clearly and dispassionately on this topic are not greeted with warmth unless they end up with an acceptable conclusion. FWIW, the original poster's points (with the exception of the taxpayer $ issue) were all drawn from topics which have been brought up in the peer-reviewed literature.

    4. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by hackus · · Score: 1

      >You conceited f*ck!
      >May I suggest looking around this planet to see >if there is anything that may suggest a previous >sentient species *cough*Easter Island*cough*. Or >perhaps a current parallel sentient species >*cough*dolphins*cough*, or even the fact that if >I wasn't human, I would (just like any other wild >animal that has experienced humans before) avoid >humanity with all my ability.

      Ouch.

      I never said Humanity was better than dolphins. I never said dolphins were stupid.

      But I do not see dolphins pondering thier own existence and mortality, writing poetry, sending thier kind to the planets. Even, perhaps trying to communnicate with other creatures in the sea which may very well exist beneath Europa's surface ice. Which according to the latest magnetometer readings may have a salty ocean beneath all that ice.

      Easter Island is way outside the scope here.
      :-)

      -hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    5. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by hackus · · Score: 1

      > Sorry, it's just laughable to say that 80% of >the stars in our galaxy are too metal-poor to >harbor terrestrial planets. Same goes for the >implication that most locations in the Galactic >disk are too "dangerous" to support life. Most >stars in the Milky Way are shielded from the >Galaxy's core just as much as the Sun is.

      You took this out of context. Which isn't fair.

      Even if you are in the plane, and close to the core, you have a statistically higher chance of that system being sterilized by SuperNova events, and other nasty activity which comes from being closer to the core. Even if you are in the stellar plane, the local density of the solar neighborhood closer than say, 1/3rd of the way in will either fry your world solar system from super nova explosions, collide with another star system, or be susceptible to high energy core events, which even a gas cloud or coal sack in between will not protect you from these things.

      It is strange though. I never mentioned anything about Tax Payer money about SETI. I simply mentioned 1 Billion which is a figure I got from a goverment report on SETI at JPL's site. Everyone is all of a sudden really defense, and for all the wrong reasons in my view because what is thier to get defensive about when there isn't any results from the research to date.

      :-)

      It would seem tax payer money is making less and less of a contribution to SETI and it is relying on more and more private sector funding anyhow.

      -hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    6. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by hackus · · Score: 1

      I have been in contact with some SETI people, but most of them are outside the scientific base, and when I pose these problems to them, or point out responses to these pieces of evidence, when taken apart don't seem like much.

      I mean after all? Metal in stars? Solar Wind research, populations and distribution of stars by types, and whether thier position in the galactic disk can discount enourmous populations of stars for sentient life, and perhaps even life itself.

      They say, you are wrong, there is just too many stars out there!!

      It is almost as though sometimes research dollars are funding the "process" and not the "science". After all, lots of money has, and still continues to go into SETI programs.

      I am also just an amatuer. I should put that in quotes because well, you should see what my setup looks like I am building.
      (I promise to make it all GNU when I am done with it.)

      :-)

      -hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    7. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by bendude · · Score: 1

      Naturally, when you base your beliefs on only that which you can see, and then you start giving what you can see qualifications as to whether to include them into the big picture or not, you can come up with whatever scenario you feel like.

      I think there may be a company in the US that markets this way, but I can't be too sure. Is it Macrohard, Microshaft, Evil empire, oh well I think it's something like that.

      --


      Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
    8. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by hackus · · Score: 1

      Our Sun is 4.5 Billion years of age, and it is estimated that the solar neightborhood or the gas cloud from which we get our solar system, took about 2 billion years to collapse.

      Total time to create our solar system is about 6 billion years, half the 12-14 billion age of the known Universe.

      Which means life finally arrived 6 billion years later after the formation of our Universe and then our solar system.

      From what we are starting to know about stellar nurseries from Hubble it can take an aweful long time for a cloud of gas to collapse and form a system.

      I am making the assumption it took 2 billion years for the original stellar gas cloud from which we formed got enough graviational muscle together to begin the final collapse of our solar system.
      -hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    9. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by hackus · · Score: 1

      Gosh I did say the earth existed for half this time. (6 billion years) Sorry, I am not very good at typing fast, and I do have a job you know. I got mixed up in trying to point out the total time for formation and related processes, vs actual lifetime of Earth! :-) I made a correction to that statement, and I hope everyone reads it. :-) -gc

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    10. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by LMCBoy · · Score: 1
      Don't try to martyr the post as "clear and dispassionate" thinking whose only fault is that it reaches unacceptable conclusions.

      I have no problem with the poster's conclusions. He thinks sentience is rare. Fine, me too. But I recognize that it's just speculation, a pure guess. My problem is that his arguments were both unclear and wrong, and I daresay, passionate.

      FWIW, the original poster's points (with the exception of the taxpayer $ issue) were all drawn from topics which have been brought up in the peer-reviewed literature.
      How can you tell? It was all so badly mangled as to make any similarity to actual scientific knowledge purely coincidental. Like the man said, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

      Sorry, it's just laughable to say that 80% of the stars in our galaxy are too metal-poor to harbor terrestrial planets. Same goes for the implication that most locations in the Galactic disk are too "dangerous" to support life. Most stars in the Milky Way are shielded from the Galaxy's core just as much as the Sun is.

      And to cite a study about zero-metal stars in this context makes no sense. So-called pop III stars were the first to form. They were very massive and short-lived, and they seeded the proto-Galaxy with enriched material, giving all subsequent stellar pops (all those present today) at least some amount of heavy elements. There are currently no known pop III (i.e., zero metallicity) stars.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    11. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by socokid · · Score: 0

      It seems your logic has been skewed by some force that I'm not familiar with.

      You see, not only are there billions of stars in our own galaxy, there are billions of galaxies. We are now finding that planetary systems aren't nearly as rare as we used to think, and this notion is dwindling away at an accelerated pace. In ten years, we may find planetary systems VERY common. Neither you or I can argue either way, at this point.

      Now take into account that the distances between MOST stars are extremely hard to comprehend. Our own nearest is over 1 light year away (discounting the sun : ). We would have to travel 186000 miles a SECOND for a YEAR to reach it.

      NOW take into account that you seem to wield time like it's measurable on your watch. My god, comprehending just a few thousand years is difficult. You are talking about processes that take inconcievable amounts of TIME. To suggest that "sentient" (bad word in my opinion, should have used self actualized or something) could only have arisen after half the known universe's time is strange. Half the known universe's time would be 6 billion years old. We haven't even found human remains that date back 6 MILLION. So, to suggest that it took that long is silly. It may have taken only a million years, but this particularly YOUNG planet didn't have the potential until then. Who knows? You or I don't. You have to understand all the we DON'T understand, which is much more than what we think we do. That's all.

      Also, to suggest that all other life-forms, sentient or not, would have to follow Earths path is even sillier. That would be like suggesting I know for a fact that other life forms would have two eyes, breathe oxygen, etc...when we have just recently found bacteria living in space, on comets, asteroids etc..and that our deep oceans are teeming with life under unbelievable pressures, where there is never any light, they feed off of minerals spewing from extremely hot fissures. We are finding life occuring in the most extreme places, floating in space, falling to earth... It is very easy for me to comprehend an intelligent life form developing MILLIONS of years prior to our own somewhere else in this extremely vast universe. To say otherwise would be admitting that you think you know what the universe offers by looking at our own, non-descript, medium sized planet in a section of our non-descrpit galaxy, one of billions, in the universe that would be the equivelent to an electron in a piece of substance making up a grain of sand on ONE of the Earths beaches, which would again, be plain silly.

      I apologize, it's just that your thinking of the universe seems very squeezed and shrink wrapped, when it's (the known univers) in fact extremely vast, and even uncomprehendible by most people.

    12. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by hackus · · Score: 1

      > 2. We don't know that sentient life is RARE. >It's very possible, but it's difficult to extract >our experience on one planet to the rest of the >Universe, don't you think? Even if sentient life >is RARE, why is that necessarily a BAD thing? If >we're the only ones, then that makes us pretty >important, in some sense.

      So you are proposing that the physical laws that govern the path to life on our planet are somehow different elsewhere in the Universe and that Planet Earth really isn't a very good example?

      You are not serious I hope.

      I never said sentient life is a bad thing, you are right it makes us very very interesting. Besides, perhaps SOME sentient life MUST be first to arise in our galaxy, maybe we are it?

      > 3. The Sun is a rather ordinary star. Yes, it is >more metal-rich than the average star in our >galaxy, but not by much. There are many millions >of stars in the Milky Way that are reasonably >similar to our beloved Sol.
      The SUN isn't an ordinary STAR.

      More and more research suggest most stars are binary, variable, or metal poor.

      > 4. Low metal content does not make a star >"unstable" in any way. Heavy elements do not >significantly regulate fusion reactions. If >anything, they cause a lower burning efficiency, >which would make a star burn hotter, which would >make its lifetime shorter. There are no stars >with "No metals"; all stars have at least some >component of heavy elements. Finally, not to >nitpick, but stars form from interstellar >material, not intergalactic material.

      I didn't explain this very well.

      The idea is this. A star that has a very low mass like our sun (relatively speaking), with a relatively larger percentage of metal in the convecting portions of the star, provides a way that reduces instability over the lifetime of the star in as far as its local emissions in its solar neighborhood. It doesn't affect its burn rate. As we both know mass determines how long the star will ultimately live in each of its life cycles towards a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole. (Reduces the intensity of Solar Sun Spot activity and insures the magnetic field around the star stays a certain shape which makes it unlikely that a major solar weather event will expel material along the orbital plane the orbiting planets occupy). What the exact methods are for the transferal of energy and how more metal content, even at the fractions I am talking about which are very low, have on solar weather still needs research, I must admit.

      But you can see how this can have all sorts of effects on worlds that do not have a star like ours, if this true outside our solar system. Consider what would happen to our atmosphere if a large unrestricted solar event about a star that had a weaker magnetic field that intercepts the orbital ecliptical plane of the this hypothetical solar system. Disasterous! Were that to happen directly in line with the earth, the earths atmosphere would be lost at the poles as high energy plasma heated it to escape velocity.

      Even with a magnetic field, the Earth would not keep its atmosphere for very long when we are talking about Billions of years.

      I read this in a recent paper, which I will have to find if you are interested.

      This is what I mean by an "unstable star", which is probably different than what you are thinking. (i.e. unstable as in affecting its burn rate rather than unstable as far as the local solar weather which I maintain stars with more metal content at relative masses of our star have a much more benign solar weather activity than stars with very little metal or non at all at the same mass level.)

      >6. This bit of misinformation is why I just had >to reply. Ahem...
      >SETI isn't using ANY taxpayer money. None. >Several years ago a republican congressman beat >his chest about the millions (NOT billions, as >you slander) of dollars we were pissing away on >little green men, so all federal funding of SETI >was ended. They continue operations today on >grants from private foundations (Notably, the >Packard foundation).

      Who said I was talking about Tax payer money? List one sentence I said "Tax Payer Money was being wasted." SETI has during its lifetime got a lot of money from different sources.

      And yes, since it was formed, SETI has gone through 1 BILLION dollars of funding, and you are right, some of it is tax payer money.

      I didn't say BILLIONS either, I said BILLION as in singular.

      > 7. The Sun is NOT in a special part of the >galaxy. Yes, it is shielded from the harmful >radiation at the galaxy center, but so is much of >the Milky Way disk, where over 90% of the Mily >Way's stars are. Stars do not get more massive as >you move toward the galactic center. I have no >idea where you get that from.

      By Special I mean special for the sorts of things we are talking about, and that is to answer the question: Statistically speaking, what Star system has a better chance of creating a good home for life? At the core? Around the core? In the middle? 2/3rds out from the core? Or way and the heck on the tip of an arm? Outside the galactic plane? Inside the galactic plane?

      This is what I mean by special location.

      I disagree, with you about this. I firmly believe with what we know about mass distribution so far, that is, assuming our galaxy really is a typical spiral. (Recent evidence suggests we live in a barred spiral galaxy, not a true spiral or a drano galaxy as I like to call them.).

      You don't want to be near the core, or in direct view of the core of a galaxy is you want to foster a long stable home for life. You don't want to be too far out either because it is shown that much of the mass on the edges of the arms of many other galaxies are metal poor. You want to be about 2/3rd's or so away from the core or in some location that has a relatively high metal count and loosely populated solar neighborhood. (i.e. over billions of years it would be a shame if another Star bumped into our sun, it would probably eject most of the inner planets into galactic space.)

      I didn't say ET couldn't exist, remember? I said given the vast amount of time we are talking about ET might not exist in our time, or more than likely already came and went or WE are ET!!!

      Rare SENTIENT life which is what I am talking about, not or is not the same as rare life. Like I said I think life isn't all that rare and I bet if we ever muster the vision to explore Jupitor's moons or put men on Mars, we will see fossilized life forms.

      I have a running bet with my colleagues that the probe we send to Europa, if we can get below the ice sheets, will land, drill through the ice a couple of miles, pop out, and for the first 30 seconds we will explore around the ocean depths then, immediately be eaten by SOMETHING for a snack.

      Houston. We have a problem, we lost our probe to a big 80 foot, watchamacallit.

      Whatever it is, it will be worth it.

      -Hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    13. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by bendude · · Score: 1

      Earth has existed for about half that time and in all that time, through billions of years of Evolution, only ONE species has emerged sentient.

      You conceited f*ck!
      May I suggest looking around this planet to see if there is anything that may suggest a previous sentient species *cough*Easter Island*cough*. Or perhaps a current parallel sentient species *cough*dolphins*cough*, or even the fact that if I wasn't human, I would (just like any other wild animal that has experienced humans before) avoid humanity with all my ability.

      --


      Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
    14. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What makes you, or anyone else, know what life is or what it needs outside of Earth?

      ONE species?

      sentient
      1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
      2 : AWARE
      3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

      I don't think you know, or anyone else for that matter.
      But spoken like a good christian sheep.

    15. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by Alexis+Morissette · · Score: 0

      Um... from where exactly have you pulled all of this? First, the Earth is only a little more than four billion years old, which isn't half of either twelve billion, or the more likely accurate fourteen billion. Now, as for this one (1) sentient species... huh? There were hundreds of thousands, millions even, of sentient species on this planet last I checked, have been for upwards of half a billion years. It's also noteworthy to mention that life first appeared on Earth very shortly after it first became possible for life to exist; that seems to imply that life is fairly easy to create and will appear spontaneously in the right environment. Anyways, I could go on about the low-metal stars and the "Sol isn't ordinary" thing, but a couple people have beaten me to it...

      --
      This is a special excite .sig
      This
    16. Re:What SETI doesn't want you to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      POP3 stars? Does this mean there are also SMTP stars?

  18. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you are saying is you dont have the balls to face me nazi ? not surpised your kind prefer the dark like the cockroaches you are.

    Put up of shut up

    name the date, the place and the time, i will be there - one of us walks away.

    You want a war - then lets go tough guy - lets see how well you do in the real world against a real armed person.

    PS IM GONNA HOUND YOU EVERY TIME YOU POST YOU SHITHEAP - SHOW SOME OF THIS SUPPOSED SUPERMAN POWER AND PROVE YOUR NOT THE FAT,SMELLY, SMALL DICKED RETARD WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE

    After all your'e not scared of a smelly jew are you ?

  19. Re:Earth, quite unique by DoomHaven · · Score: 1
    Just because I have one fucked-up sense of irony, I present the following with tongue I cheek:
    You're joking, right? You refute my claim that these calculations are speculative with numbers that are based on?.....pure, 200-proof speculation. The mind boggles.

    Even taking your most empirical probability, that 4/9 planets are terrestrial. This is pure speculation, because we have no idea how typical our solar system is. The rest of your numbers either suffer from the same reliance on a single known instance from a pool of billions, or from an assumption about what life requires (life needs a large moon? How do you know that?) Life on Earth probably started around hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean; why not add plate tectonics to your list of speculations?

    Of course, your values are just as valid as mine. Or as invalid. But, the process is the same.
    --
    "Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
  20. Re:Why look? by csbruce · · Score: 2

    Anything greater than 21st technology and chances are they'll find us a LOT sooner than we'll find them.

    Chances are they'd have blown themselves to kingdom come.

  21. Re:Too bad by emir · · Score: 2, Informative

    too bad that some people first post and then read article just to get the first post :( important thing about this discovery of the new gas giants is not the discovery of the gas giant itself but the location of its orbit and preferences it has that possibly imply smaller rocky planets in habitable zone.

    --
    -- http://electronicintifada.net --
  22. Re:Why look? by cygnusx · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't wait for an ack if the distance was 45 Light Years. I'd keep broadcasting. At least 45 years later, we'd have a pretty good rate of information coming through.

  23. Re:distance? by Yunzil · · Score: 1
    Ursa major is 3 light years away

    Get a clue. "Ursa Major" is a constellation made of many stars at vastly varying distances, none of which is 3 light years. The closest star (after the sun) is Proxima Centauri which is something like 4.25 light years away.

  24. Re:Too bad by pavonis · · Score: 2
    And if they weren't, they'd disappear behind the planet every 'night' for long periods. Hence, you've got a moon with huge long nights, freezing the planet, and long hot days.

    As others have pointed out, there are a number of things which could moderate (or for that matter, extremize) this situation, including atmosphere, energy from the mother planet, internal energy, oceans, and so on.

    But even a fairly extreme temperature range is not necessarily unsurvivable. Earth has a number of examples of life that goes dormant under extreme conditions, including high-altitude bacteria which essentially freeze solid every night and thaw out each morning. Desert spores, blossoming briefly during rare moments of moisture, are another instructive example. Of course, 'higher' life may be more limited- or not ; at this point we have very little basis for deciding.

  25. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he is at +5, then you'll need to mod him down a generic "Overrated" point and then mod him up a "Funny" point in order to dilute his "Insightful" points.

  26. Re:God Demands Mirror Back, Almighty Peeved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agh, am I really that drunk? Replace 'probably' with 'properly' and all shall become clear.

  27. Re:Amen brother! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you got against mud huts, dude?

  28. Re:killing serious discussion by Griim · · Score: 1

    "The greater the mind, the greater the need for simplicity of play."

    I think that this would be a very sterile environment indeed if all we had were serious comments on each subject. I myself look for both funny and interesting comments on a subject, to keep my interest and to just have fun.

    I look forward to the 'geek jokes,' funny remarks said on a subject that only we would get. I think it makes for a better sense of comradery with the people around here.

    I do like the suggestion of having the option in the slashcode to filter out Funny, but I would be the last person to use it.

  29. Re:hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    hypocrisy

    Idiots.

    This comment has been submitted already, 277222 hours , 39 minutes ago. No need to try again.

  30. Reminds me of FIDOnet by Evil+Pete · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No I'm not trying to be funny. But fidonet ran in just that style (but a lot faster :) : heres a my longish comment on something ... followed by heres my long winded discussion/reply. Worked quite well. In fact it was a lot more constructive than IRC which seems to lead to more shallow conversations. If you're exchanging vast bodies of knowledge then it would be fine ... and of course just because you send one message doesn't mean you can't send yearly updates even before you get the first reply.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  31. Re:RALPH JEW HATER NADER IS A FAKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he, he, this is _EXACTLY_ what he expects..
    u guys, ur too lame to respond to his insanities .. in fact ur playing his game!

  32. Re:Why look? by susano_otter · · Score: 2

    Absence of any form of interstellar communication doesn't mean there's no intelligent life where we're looking.

    What's the old saying? "We know there's intelligent life out there because it's not talking to us."

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  33. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teflon was developed in 1945 as a sealant for the gaseuos diffusion uranium enrichment process. Here is a chronology of the development of atomic weapons. Here is an overview of the modern process. So in fact, the necessity of inventing weapons of mass destruction gave us the gift of non-stick cookware. Pretty nifty.

  34. (ShorterDays == BetterEngineers) ? PHB : Engineer by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1


    " ... the two planets hint at the presence of smaller, Earth-like bodies in tighter orbits."

    So it seems that they have shorter days then? Wow ... their Engineers must be really good to keep to the release schedule even with them there shorter days (says the PHB)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  35. Re:Why look? by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

    From the appropriate vantage point in space, you have succeeded in doing nothing more than waving a garden hose back and forth really fast. Information about the flashlight's lateral motion won't arrive any faster than it would have if the light was traveling in a straight line.

  36. Re:(ShorterDays == BetterEngineers) ? PHB : Engine by LMCBoy · · Score: 1
    Nope, tighter orbits would mean shorter years. The spin period is the length of the day.

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  37. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shows how much you know about jews. Aryans were Communist first.

  38. Time-to-Live exceede! by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
    Its one heck of a way for a PING.

    Perhaps we should start by sending them Comer & Stevens as UDP (I wouldn't wish the RFCs on anyone) and follow it with a connect?

  39. Re:Why should I care? by trongey · · Score: 1

    Discovering irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life would mean the end of religion...

    No,no. Quite the opposite.
    Most religions have a strong belief that the existence of God can't be proved.
    We have a ton of research showing how planets and life can be produced. At this point it's scientifically almost inconceivable that other planet systems and life wouldn't exist. Therefore the nonexistence of those would be very strong evidence of external intervention (hand of God).
    Since non-proof of God is so important, it is, therefore, of great religious importance for extrasolar life to exist.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  40. Re:The result of my attempted post... by cybermage · · Score: 1

    post our messages to them on Slashdot and by the time we hit "submit" the aliens' response will already be on its way back to us.

    There are no other^H^H^H^H^H aliens posting to this forum. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

  41. Re:slashcode bug/feature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better to put a karma cap of only two +2 funny moderations. Then if its funny and of interesting or insightful or informative value it can make it to +5, otherwise the best it can do is +4.

  42. Earth, quite unique by PineHall · · Score: 1
    There are many unique characteristics that make up earth and it's location. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has calculated the probability that earth exists with all its characteristics at 10^53. He also says that the maximum possible number of planets in the universe is about 10^23. Now I don't know what the error bars on these figures would look like, but I think it is fairly safe to say that earth is quite the unique planet in a quite unique location in the universe.

    I got these numbers from his book "The Creator and the Cosmos". I should also say that Hugh Ross is an "Old Earth Creationist". (That is he believes the universe is 14-17 billion years old and that there was a creator.) He puts together a good argument in favor of some creator fine tuning the universe for life on earth.

    1. Re:Earth, quite unique by LMCBoy · · Score: 1
      Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has calculated the probability that earth exists with all its characteristics at 10^53
      All of its characteristics, eh? Does that include having a Slashdot? It must, with probability like that! One should be very skeptical of "calculations" like this; they are based on pure speculation, nothing more.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    2. Re:Earth, quite unique by DoomHaven · · Score: 2

      Based on pure speculation? Not really. Let's look at our solar system, shall we:

      Odds of a planet being a terrestial planet: 4/9 Odds of a planet inside the life zone: 2/9
      Odds of a planet inside the life zone having and keeping a life-bearing atmosphere: 1/2
      Odds of planet having a significantly-sized moon (for tidal forces, intertidal zones being a key area for the evolution of aquatic life to non-aquatic life): 1/63
      Odds of planet bearing any life whatsoever: 2/9
      Odds of planet having significant amounts of surface liquid water: 1/9

      Total odds of intelligent life: 16/826686 = 1.94e-5

      Or: intelligent life springing up once every 51668 planets. Now, feel free to massage the data as you see fit; I made the assumption that every event was mutually-exclusive (IE: intelligent life needs both life and water, but life in general doesn't need water). As well, I based the assumption that the odds are standard across the universe. From what I have read, the odds of a planet have such a disproportionately large satellite is very remote.

      --
      "Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
    3. Re:Earth, quite unique by ilsa · · Score: 1
      I think Carl Sagan put it most succinctly. Without using any math that would confuse the average American. Either the fact that we only know of a dozen planets or so and only one contains life and only a fraction of that life is sentient would tend to indicate that life (and particularly intelligent life) is exceedingly rare and maybe cannot be found elsewhere. Or the universe is such a mind bogglingly big place that life (and particularly intelligent life) might be out there in abundance without us being any the wiser.

      Sagan also pointed out that if all these alien abduction stories were true then it was amazing that the neighbors hadn't noticed. It is not known whether he was smoked up when he came to these conclusions.

      Bottom line is that until we get a galactic greeting card it all may as well be science fiction.

      --
      -- I Am Not A Terrorist.
    4. Re:Earth, quite unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
      Spoken like you know.
      If you think the size of the universe is known by anyone, you are a bigger idiot than Hugh Ross.

      (IE: intelligent life needs both life and water, but life in general doesn't need water)

      My mistake, you are a bigger idiot than Hugh Ross.

    5. Re:Earth, quite unique by DoomHaven · · Score: 1
      You're joking, right? You refute my claim that these calculations are speculative with numbers that are based on?.....pure, 200-proof speculation. The mind boggles.
      The numbers are pure speculation? Have you looked at a diagram of our *solar system*. I mean, it pretty clear cut. How many terrestial planets are there in our system: hmmm, there is Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. *That's* *four* *out* *of* *nine*. It's not rocket science. It's counting.
      Even taking your most empirical probability, that 4/9 planets are terrestrial. This is pure speculation, because we have no idea how typical our solar system is.
      Well, we know of what, less than 10 solar systems, and ours is unique, so I would say that the odds of our solar system forming are at worst 1/10. You are right, we don't know for sure, but it gives us a start. A process. A methodology. From that, we can refine our model as better data comes through. And until we have better data, bluntly, you can't *disprove* my numbers. The numbers are completely valid, based on our current knowledge.

      I never said *life* requires a large moon. I said *intelligent* life requires a disproportionately large moon. Assumption one: life starts in water. Assumption two: intelligent life only happens when intelligence aids in survival. Assumption three: intelligence only aids in survival because intelligence allows for the use of tools. Assumption four: main tools that early intelligence can use don't work in water (try swinging a stick, throwing a rock, or starting a fire underwater). Assumption five: life will make the transistion from aquatic to terrestial at shores. Assumption six: without a regular transitional period between land and water (say, like an inter-tidial zone caused by the gravity of a disproportionately large moon), it is unlikely to impossible that life will evolve to become terrestial.
      --
      "Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
    6. Re:Earth, quite unique by Newander · · Score: 1
      I've got some numbers that I've worked up that place the odds a little bit higher. I'd like to submit them here.

      Odds of a planet having intelligent life: 1/9

      Total odds of intelligent life: 1/9 = 1.11e-1

      I welcome any criticisms you may have.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

  43. Re:You don't need communication to confirm life by Grayraven · · Score: 1

    Don't underestimate the amount of information that data-starved astronomers can get out of what's available, though.

    You mean funding starved, don't you? :-)

    --
    "Source... The Final Frontier" -- keepersoflists.org
  44. Re:Too bad by KingKenny · · Score: 0

    More appropriate to the original post, Uranus tilts at something like 97.9 degrees.

    Now brace thyself for the zillion butt gags that get +5 funny...

  45. Let's move our earth there by Hoo00 · · Score: 1

    This is good news. If the inner region is empty and our earth explodes someday in the future, we can move our earth there. Even if we can't move the entire earth there, we may build a new one. All it needs are some dirts and lots of energy, anyway.

    What is sol?

  46. Re:Why should I care? by nathanh · · Score: 2

    People spend billions of dollars per year doing non-profitable things, such as watching football. Why? It's entertaining. Space launches are also entertaining. Any other benefit is an additional bonus.

  47. Re:Science fiction by pavonis · · Score: 2
    Now here we have a bunch of astronomers who have been funded to find planets. They come up with a single observation technique that they reckon will prove the existence of planets. They have no way of correlating their findings. They look for this observation, expecting to find it. They find it. This proves the existence of planets.

    Remind me, what would be the effects on the funding of this project if they hadn't "proven" both their technique and the existence of planets?

    It's amazing how scientists, who work in a world of almost bizarre openness, are often subject to more suspicion than, say, corporate CEOs.

    People were looking for extrasolar planets for a good five years before they refined their techniques enough to find one. Funding continued because it was good science. Their findings were immediately subject to intense scrutiny from a large community of astronomers. Independent observations were done and continue to be done. Alternative theories were proposed. Some supposed planets have been removed from the list; those that remain have, by and large, very clear signatures, well-defined periods, and no obvious alternative theories. One (which is about the number expected) has been extremely well-confirmed by observations of its transit. As a researcher in this field, believe me, mistakes are found quickly and fraud is extremely rare.

    Incidentally, Geoff Marcy's team out in California has demonstrated precision in their observations to about 3 m/s- a good factor of three better than needed for this particular detection. The papers are all on-line and not even hard to find. It might be prudent to look at them before making vague accusations.

  48. Re:Science fiction by Doctor+Fishboy · · Score: 1

    Their funding has been going for at least 10 years, and their technique is as accurate as it sounds. Iodine absorption spectroscopy *is* as accurate as the the numbers claim (about 3m/s at the last look).

    The phrase "By focusing extremely precise measuring techniques..." is poor english - they don't need a sharp image of the star, they just need as much light as possible to put into spectrograph.

    And although 99% of astronomers agree they're probably detecting planet-mass objects, there are a couple of people who think they're seeing brown dwarf stars at high orbital inclinations, and they're not planets at all.

  49. Re:Why should I care? by func · · Score: 1

    Actually, colonizing a new planet isn't going to solve any problems. They'll just get twice as big. We reproduce exponentially right now - double the habitat, and it only takes a few generations to absorb the new resources. Look at North America, for instance. If we want to survive in the future, we need to learn to work with what we've got. Either we learn to control our population, or it gets controlled. War is a pretty effective retro-active birth control. Do it now, or do it later - we choose.

  50. Re:just next door by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Of course there's life in that system! But, don't expect to hear from them anytime soon.

    How do I know? Well...during my last alien abduction, they told me so (The captain even has a pet shnitzoid named Spazmork). While passing through our solar system, their systems were knocked offline when they encountered an intense wall of RF energy packets originating from atop a coffee shop in NYC. They called it the /. effect. Took them several days to restart their systems while they muttered something about a something called a "cmdr taco" and intergalactic war.

    They are now posting warnings and to other civilizations warning of the danger of passing through the Sol system.

  51. Re:Why look? by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
    You mean you want to just send them all of our valuable intellectual property? What if they aren't as open with theirs and we get nothing out of the deal? Are you going to include some sort of EUL? "By decoding the rest of this message you agree not to come and eat humans or use the technology described within to further your own interstellar kingdom in a way that harms the interests of humans...."

    --

    (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

  52. It would be funnier if... by volpe · · Score: 2

    ... they called it "flutter and wow".

  53. Re:Why look? by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

    Damn! Only a slashdotted site has a higher latency than that! :>

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  54. Ursa Major? Ursa Minor! by MotyaKatz · · Score: 1

    Indeed Ursa Major should be a probable place to find life and stuff.

    After all, Ursa Minor Beta already has more life than it can handle: "When you're tired of Ursa Minor Beta, you're tired of life"

    --
    -- "If you had fallen into a shit pit during a battle, lick yourself off and move on." - Jaroslav Hasek
  55. slashcode bug/feature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a feature currently suggested on sourceforge for slashcode is to be able to filter out all funny comments... that'd solve your problem

    1. Re:slashcode bug/feature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it'd be nice to select (or exclude) "moderation types" in your preferences. I imagine then you could browse at 0 or even -1 if you could filter out all "Offtopic" and "Troll" moderations (for example).

    2. Re:slashcode bug/feature... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      Or make it so that you can give preference to certain moderations so they appear higher in the page.

    3. Re:slashcode bug/feature... by emir · · Score: 1

      problem is that many people are not going to be aware of this function. usually people who know most about subject are the people who have least time. they will come, glance at the comments, see bunch of "funny" comments and decide not to post because "noone is intressted anyway". it doesnt help that i can avoid to see "funny" comments, i can easily ignore them, thats what i do anyway. problem is that many busy people dont have time to go through all the "funny" comments just to find good thread on a subject.

      anyway thanks for the suggestions, i hope people will start using it, i know i will :)

      --
      -- http://electronicintifada.net --
  56. Re:Why look? by IronChef · · Score: 1, Insightful


    There are a lot of things that happen faster than light. You can even demonstrate one to yourself right now.

    Go outside. Shine a flashlight into the sky and sweep it back and forth. At some point Out There, your spot of light will be moving from side to side faster than the speed of light. Do the geometry if you want to figure out how far away that is.

    The problem is this: there is no way to exploit anything like that into an information-transmitting system. That quantum interconnected stuff you alluded to is the same way. It's cool, but ultimately useless.

    We're not going to trick physics that easily.

  57. Put up or shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be pretty scared of a pussy-ass jew-fag who's too timid to sign his name to his beliefs for fear of losing his oh-so-precious karma. Anyone wo willing to allow themselves to be censored by the slashdot groupthink is obviously going to be eager to censor others. Here's a clue for you, fascist boy: ALL speech is free speech. If speech is conditional on not being racist, then it is by definition not free. If all jews share your views, then you are all the enemies of freedom. Here's another clue: Until you login in, your bullying threats aren't worth shit.

  58. luv it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try to contribute instead of posting inanities like this one.

    Thanks for the example!

    1. Re:luv it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad someone caught the irony! :-)

  59. Re:just a test... by GiorgioG · · Score: 1

    nice to see OSS being nearly bug-free. I've seen this error plenty O' times.

  60. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to the instatiable desire you have to suck donkey dick?

  61. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discovering irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life would mean the end of religion, for one thing.

    That's worth taxing the Christ out of people for, IMHO.

  62. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK then my smart little nazi

    Street Address
    State
    Phone Number

    (PS if your'e not in the US thats OK - i have lots of friends who would like to meet you in any country)

    Come on - do you have the balls to stand up or are you a fucking little 2 foot tall small dicked wimpe, lets have this on in public - you and whatever friends you want - i have no problem getting plenty of people to back me up.

    You see the problem you have is Hitler should have finished the job, he left more than enough of us alive and now we are trained, angry, armed and awake - we will see you coming this time ass boy and youre not gonna win - youre gonna hurt

    POST YOUR DETAILS HERE IS YOU REALLY ARE A NAZI AND BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU SAY - OTHERWISE FUCK OFF AS YOU ARE NO LONGER WELCOME HERE - PUT UP OR FUCK OFF

  63. Re:Why should I care? by necrognome · · Score: 1

    WTF? You mean you can go on dates with women? Here I am thinking that their primary function is to lower my self-esteem!

    --


    Let's get drunk and delete production data!
  64. You should talk! by ZZane · · Score: 1

    Now you're +5 Funny. :P

    --
    This sig is worse than my last.
    1. Re:You should talk! by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      And has 10 replies (not counting second-level ones like this reply).

  65. Re:Attention: by aozilla · · Score: 2

    Of course we wouldn't find out about the DMCA infringement for 45 years, and the statute of limitations is only 5 years.

    --
    ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
  66. Re:distance? by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    46 Lightyears.

    Dancin Santa

  67. Re:Why look? by Ramshackle · · Score: 1
    Again, the laser "spot" is no different - it's not a real "thing," it doesn't move across the screen. It's still x number of photons striking the screen and bouncing back to your eye. The "spot" you see at one instant of time is not the same "spot" that you see at another instant. This is nothing like a ship, or even a beam of photons moving across a screen. They are leaving the emission device, striking the screen, and (a few) going back to your eye. They are never moving across the screen, or the sky, or whatever it is that the illusion perpetrates.

    The rotating disk is another interesting thought experiment, but this one has a different explanation, which is simply that you will find that no matter what construction you choose, the energy needed to bring that disc spinning fast enough that the outer edge is going faster than lightspeed exceeds infinity.

    Sorry, it's harder than that to come up with a violation of relativity.

  68. Re:Why look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like how my girlfriend communicates with me.

  69. Re:Why look? by stevelinton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, this isn't what you do. You say.

    "Hi, we think we have detected someone who might be able to receive this message. Here are 90 years of transmissions from our encyclopedias, archives, libraries, etc., with lots of redundancy, various frequencies etc. etc."

    90 years later, if all goes well, you start receiving replies like

    "Hey, good to talk, we've decoded your language primers. Here are our encyclopedias etc."

    Then a few months later

    "Based on what you've sent so far, we'd like to hear more about fly fishing, barbecue cookery and string theory (or whatever). We're also starting to skip the basic physics in our encyclopedias where it matches up with what you're telling us you already know."

    If you haven't already sent the requested info, you slip it in when the question arrives.

    It's not exactly a conversation, but if both sides are willing, you can learn a lot about one another in a couple of centuries.

  70. Re:Why should I care? by JadedMarty · · Score: 1

    I have to agree - thank you, NASA, for screwing the public - launching all those darn weather & communications satelites has cost the American public way too much $$$ & given us so little in return. Lets come back to earth - all that useless stuff floating around out there . . . .how dare they scam us by launching it!

  71. Re:Why look? by Newander · · Score: 1

    The spot will appear to move faster than light, but it is important to note that the photons comprising the beam are moving at the speed of light. Once free of the laser, the photons will continue in a straight line forever. Changing the direction of the laser will not change the direction that the photons are travelling. You are describing a giant laser space whip.

    --

    Jesus saves and takes half damage.

  72. distance? by einstein · · Score: 0

    the article doesn't say how many lightyears away this star system is.. any astronomers out there have that number off the top of their heads? or a good reference site? thanks :)
    ---

    1. Re:distance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first hit on a google search "Ursae Majoris light years":

      "Ursae Majoris is located about 31.1 light-years from Sol."

    2. Re:distance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were the valedictorian of your class, weren't you!

    3. Re:distance? by Mondrames · · Score: 1

      I thought that the big dipper was a subset of the stars that makes up Ursa Major. Same with Ursa Minor and the Little Dipper... Then again, it could be the crack.

    4. Re:distance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ursa major is 3 light years away. And the editors got it wrong again:Ursa major is the great bear, not the big dipper. Idiots.

    5. Re:distance? by MrCreosote · · Score: 1

      From the article

      "By focusing extremely precise measuring techniques at 47 Ursae Majoris, which is about 45 light years (more than 200 trillion miles) away,"

      --
      MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
    6. Re:distance? by InfiX · · Score: 1

      it says it is 45 light years away, equivalent to 200 trillion miles. read before posting?

    7. Re:distance? by einstein · · Score: 1

      this just proves how bad my reading comprehension is when I'm about to fall asleep..
      ---

    8. Re:distance? by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Oh, well I missed it too. I had to break out google to get the answer.

    9. Re:distance? by einstein · · Score: 1
      yep, I'm too sleepy to be posting on slashdot...
      it says so right in the article

      45 light years (more than 200 trillion miles) away

      time for bed...
      ---

    10. Re:distance? by InfiX · · Score: 1

      Ursa Major aka the Great Bear is the same thing as the Big Dipper.

  73. my appologies by Webtommy88 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I've been on this site for 6 months or so but never bothered to make a login, and well here is my login and im' proud of my relatively close to first post post. AC: 0. Non-AC: 1 :)

    1. Re:my appologies by xXgeneric+nicknameXx · · Score: 0
      AC: 0. Non-AC: 1

      until someone mods your OT comment down...then youll be posting at 0. check out the score on this post.

      --

      My cat's breath smells like cat food.--R. Wiggums

    2. Re:my appologies by Webtommy88 · · Score: 1

      I meant, chalk one up for the Non-AC. Am I making any sense?

  74. Re:Science fiction by LMCBoy · · Score: 1
    This is misplaced skepticism at its worst. I suggest you actually read about the methods used before spouting off about how they not only don't work, but are some kind of extortion scam put forward by "those darned scientists".

    The method is a straightforward application of the doppler effect. Conceptually simple, but it did require the development of new technology to achieve the amazing velocity reslolution quoted in the article.

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  75. Re:killing serious discussion by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    So your way of contributing to the discussion is to pound down posts that you don't like instead of raising up ones that you think are important?

    Coward,

    That is *a* way to contribute, but its not my way. Not to put to fine a point on it, I never said I didn't like funny posts. They are just overrated when put next to *real* posts. You should probably pay more attention. Read the sig, take it to heart and join us again sometime.

  76. Re:Why look? by canadian_right · · Score: 1
    As already pointed out, you don't just say 'HI', you send everything at once. But the main point of discovering life is to prove that there IS life besides that on the Earth. Finding one example of life outside of the Earth will be a huge indication that life is plentiful throughout the Universe. This will have huge implications for religion and science.

    Why would anyone think that just because some discovery will not grant you immediate benefits it shouldn't be pursued? You wouldn't be reading this on a computer if the people working on batteries and that new fangled, but completely useless, electricity 300 years ago had decided it wasn't worth it as there was no obvious short term payoff. A hundred years is a blink compared to even the short history of humanity.

    We are not going to be stuck on the Earth forever. Mars will be terra-formed, people will fill up the solar system, and eventually move to other star systems. This may seem far fetched, but I'm sure the idea that men would walk on the moon seemed far fetched even 500 years ago.

    --
    Anarchists never rule
  77. Re:Amen brother! by TheSync · · Score: 2

    The REAL problem with hunger in the world stems from a local lack of freedom, democracy, and capitalism.

  78. Re:Replacement for Sol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What a load of Hotspur. What complete and utter Tottenham.

    Heh, as a Wednsday fan I suppose I should just shut my big trap now...

  79. Re:'Alien Life' is pretty irrelevant by bluGill · · Score: 2

    Well, if they are ahead of us, odds are they have solved some problems that we are currently facing. If they could show us how to make sky scrappers 200 stories high cheaply, (think big apartments downtown), and how to grwo food a lot more efficantly then we do now, many population problems would be solved.

    If they are behind us, it can't be far because we have just barely got the ability to communicate. We can quickly bring us up to our level, and odds are good they have discovered something that we haven't yet. 45 years isn't a lot of scientific progress. That isn't to say we won't discover something while the knowledge is in transit, but even still it is useful to exchange knowedge.

    Just a warning though, if we exchange information we can't determin who is in the right in their local wars for years to come, we should therefore make sure that knowledge we transmit is avaiable to all.

  80. Re:Why look? by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

    Well....assuming that FTL travel becomes possible then by default FTL communication will become available, even if it has to be hand-brought by a courier ship...

    --Jubedgy

    --
    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
  81. think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this cr*p about intelligent life? Maybe we are unintelligent. Think about it... it aint that tough. Firstly... we are looking for life like us, but what if there was life on Mars, just different. Maybe dealing with a new dimension. Even if we ever found similar beings, we would seem veeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy primative compared to them.

    1. Re:think about it by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      A lot of what we call intelligence is very self serving. If we changed the definition of intelligence to include gorrillas or whales or dolphins or golden retrievers it would be very difficult to continue some of the businesses that depend upon the exploitation of those creatures.

      Do you think the Japanese could get away with the "scientific" slaughter of whales if whales were generally considered to be intelligent with souls and self-awareness and desires? Buddism, for example, doesn't make the arbitray distinction between a human soul and an animal's soul the way Christianity does.

      I truly hope we don't have to cope with the quandaries of extra-terrestrial "intelligence" until we've dealt the same issues much closer to home. But, on the other hand, perhaps the discovery of extra-terrestrial intelligence will force us to face these questions. Food for thought.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  82. Re:Why look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the other poster said, oxygen is difficult to keep around. The O2 molecule is very unstable (that's why things catch fire) and was not present in the Earth's atmosphere until the invention of photosynthesis, which creates oxygen as a waste product. Any atmosphere with a large amount of oxygen has an atmosphere that is largely created by chemical reactions that require concentrated use of energy (aka life).

  83. Re:Interplanetary gaming by bendude · · Score: 1

    Attention - Anyone who thinks I havn't caught onto the concept of long ping times between inter-stella distances.

    The idea of deathmatching with people on mars on a 6 minute ping, at first, made me laugh. Not in the that's really funny kind of laugh, but in the monkey who's a little nervous about his situation kind of way.
    Honestly, it hurts to try and work out a way around that lag. I usually fall into the "can't we just use sub-space?" trap.

    Anyway, incase you didn't know, your comments are not funny, original, or even nearly observational.

    (Sorry -Having a bad week - not usually so anal)

    --


    Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
  84. Re:hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Name the time and the place ralphie - youre not gonna get off that easy - youre a fat 4 eyed fraud and im going to keep going until you fuck off, slashdot terminates your account or yous front up

    UNTIL THEN YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A BIG MOUTHED PUSSY - PUT UP OR SHUT UP - EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE SCARED OF A JEW NOW BOY

  85. Re:Too bad by sangretoro · · Score: 1

    Energy and heat can be derived in a number of different ways. Gravity (from the mother planet as well as its own) itself in conjunction with other factors such as friction on a solid ice planet may be enough to produce vast oceans.

  86. Re:Finding the star by gjbivin · · Score: 1
    It's 5th magnitude, so you will probably have to get away from city lights to be able to see it naked-eye. Binoculars will help.

    Of course, all you will see is an ordinary-looking dim star. But it's the thought that counts.

  87. Oxymoron by kindbud · · Score: 2
    More than 70 planetary systems have been found around stars other than the sun, including three with multiple planets, but most have orbits that are sharply elliptical.
    I'm clearly confused.
    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  88. Re:I love this metric... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I exert a wobble on the sun of 1.7358793969849246231155778894472e-22 cm per sec.

    This is my contribution to the detection of Earth
    by alien civilizations.

    Your Welcome.

  89. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *yawn* If you had bothered to infer anything from the article you would have seen the the gas giants are too far inwards and too large to allow for an orbit of smaller Earth-like planets to exist between the star and the planet. This article was on MSNBC much earlier today.

  90. Re:Why look? by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

    I suppose the point is, once we discover how to travel faster than light, that system might be first on our list of places to swing by.

    As for communication lag, the concept of molecular bifurcation (bifrucation?) communication (which would allow instantanious communication regardless of distance) is steadily gaining acceptance as something that might be viable in the not-so-distant future.

  91. Re:Why should I care? by aozilla · · Score: 2

    All this space nonsense is just a way to distract us from what is really important in our lives.

    Hmm, the meaning of life would be second on my list, right behind "women". Discovering aliens seems like it could contribute to that goal.

    --
    ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
  92. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im not making a threat my friend - im giving you the chance to show your power to thw world - you speak about killing jews and such like so heres your chance, and the link to nader proves one thing.

    You are all piss and wind my small dicked moron - you wouldnt give any details would you ?

    You guys are all the same - brave on the other end of a link and no balls in life - unless the person happens to be old or infirm or disabled.

    So we have proven youre a wimp - now go away.

    You had a chance to put up - you didnt.

    I dont need to give you my details - i asked for yours - you can name the time and the place - you wont

    You are a small brained fat guy who wouldnt say boo to anyone in real life but get on the net and become a nazi superman.
    whay am i not surprised

  93. Science fiction by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
    • By focusing extremely precise measuring techniques at 47 Ursae Majoris, which is about 45 light years (more than 200 trillion miles) away, astronomers measured wobbles of 36 feet per second and inferred the presence of one of the large planets.

    Uh huh. When I did astronomy, back in the day, we worked in powers of ten. Anything with the right number of digits was "close enough".

    Now here we have a bunch of astronomers who have been funded to find planets. They come up with a single observation technique that they reckon will prove the existence of planets. They have no way of correlating their findings. They look for this observation, expecting to find it. They find it. This proves the existence of planets.

    Remind me, what would be the effects on the funding of this project if they hadn't "proven" both their technique and the existence of planets?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  94. Re:Why look? by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 2, Funny

    Forget talking to them, what about playing quake with them? 45 light-years?! Thats a ping of 141 Billion. I guess I can forget trying to headshot a grey any time soon...

  95. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How wondrous our God is that he could extend His hand and create the Heavens and scatter the seeds of life across the Universe. How perfect He must be to have created for us this universe with its myriad of laws, each guiding time and space to the creation of life. This could not have happened by chance!

  96. Re:Why look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was an Asimov short story about this.

  97. Re:Too bad by fors · · Score: 1

    A planet of the size they talk about will give off enough infrared to probably keep some of the closer satellites warm.

    --
    "If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
  98. Re:Why should I care? by brank · · Score: 1
    Next time it gets cold and winter-ish, put on a pair of those gloves with newfangled space-age insulators. Thank the space program for developing the material that's keeping your hands warm.

    That's only one example of how NASA provides a return on investment for the American public. It's an old example, and there have been many, many, more since then.

    --
    it's green.
  99. Already sent by dglo · · Score: 1

    We've already sent the first message to an extraterrestrial civilization.

    Of course, anyone who used Usenet 20 years ago has some rudimentary experience in this sort of conversation. Back then, it took between 3 and 10 days for replies to make it back to the original poster, because much of the traffic was sent via 2400 baud modems in the middle of the night. Conversations were ... interesting.

  100. 'Alien Life' is pretty irrelevant by Dutchie · · Score: 2
    Ofcourse it would be mega-cool to find that there's other 'life' out there, but more as a 'new gadget' kind of thing than anything else. If we were to find 'life' on any planet, their development would either be much ahead or much behind our own development. Sure, perhaps we could learn a thing or two when they're ahead of us. And maybe we can dissect a thing or two when they're behind us. But is that really so important?

    Earth is quickly running out of resources. Fusion reactors seem to become promising but commercial use is still decades away. Nuclear reactors create too big a waste problem. Oil is running out (ofcourse I'm thinking 'decades' here). The number of humans on this planet is going up dramatically. Hopefully before the time comes that we're out of energy sources, we will somehow be able to set out on a trip to a planet that could support us.

    --
    • Imagination is more important than knowledge.

      • -- Albert Einstein
    1. Re:'Alien Life' is pretty irrelevant by Explo · · Score: 1

      Earth is quickly running out of resources. Fusion reactors seem to become promising but commercial use is still decades away. Nuclear reactors create too big a waste problem. Oil is running out (ofcourse I'm thinking 'decades' here). The number of humans on this planet is going up dramatically. Hopefully before the time comes that we're out of energy sources, we will somehow be able to set out on a trip to a planet that could support us.

      I'd rather suggest that nobody leaves this planet for permanent residence in lush and living world until we have managed to get some sense about not making planets polluted. Meanwhile, colonizing things like asteroids, moon etc. is OK.

      --
      Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
    2. Re:'Alien Life' is pretty irrelevant by RoboSchro · · Score: 1

      The first, and probably most profound, thing we'd learn if we encountered alien life, is just that it exists. Humans would gain a new sense of our commonality. We seem to easily fall into "us and them" thought patterns -- nothing's going to stop us thinking tribally unless there's a whole new "them" out there. We wouldn't have to go there for this to happen. Just find evidence of a civilisation. It'd be more than a new gadget... just think of the impact on religions and philosophies...

    3. Re:'Alien Life' is pretty irrelevant by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      We will need, at the very very least, good, compact, and efficient fusion reactors before we can even think about sending an expedition to planets in other star systems.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    4. Re:'Alien Life' is pretty irrelevant by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      Earth has more than enough energy to support us in millions of years to come, if we just learn to cooperate with her and eachother.

      - Steeltoe

  101. 45 Lightyears Away... by StaticEngine · · Score: 2, Interesting
    On detecting other planets that may sustain life, we could point a radio telescope their way and see if anything intelligent has been broadcasting something as of 45 years ago. Sure, it's highly unlikely, but if we could eliminate the background noise and pick up the extraordinarily faint signal, we'd know. If we hear nothing, it doesn't seem like we're any worse off than we were.

    Of course if there is life there, and they're getting our signals, they'll at least know we're an inquisitive race, because the first episodes of Perry Mason should just be arriving...

  102. You know.. by Axe · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    ..I keep my reading limit on Slashdot at -1, because I think it is funny. Even this particular type of a thread. Obviously, you also do that - and do not claim you read it for the news.

    Personally, for example, I am not a racist. I am in fact a minority, in some sense. But I do not care about people talking. Cause I am not bothered but what people can say about me those, whose opinion I do care about, will be right.. Maybe you do care, and that's your right.. But, it was mentioned - unless you can be reached - any threats in a public forum aren't worth shit.

    Just an observation...

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
  103. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly! You underestimate the power of religion to morph its beliefs.

    Christianity is happily changing to fit evolution in, just like they will eventually change to accept stem cell research and cloning (not anytime soon, though! Look how long it took them to admit that evolution might be real!) and if we ever discover life outside of Earth, it will react to that, too.

    When religion starts to look TOO silly, religion changes. Anything to keep those collection plates going around...

  104. Probably not by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

    Why aren't we watching their TV shows? There's something to be said about the degradation of the signal after a certain point, especially omnidirectional broadcasts. Background radiation and interference would make NTSC decoding impossible after a certain point.

  105. Re:Finally, we found something by Sarah+Thustra · · Score: 1

    ...I read about this system, and about five or six other known systems that "might support life" in Figments of Reality, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen's sequal to The Collapse of Chaos.

    I'm no astronomer, but I know what infinity is. Of course they're out there.

  106. Re:more stats by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    Still, I'm not sure how a rocky planet could form with those two monsters nearby; it's the "far away from the star" in the WP article that confused me.

    Consider that it has an year that is 3 years long. This would put it where we have the asteroid belt now, roughly. I suspect that Jupiter could be in closer without causing too much of a problem for us.

    On a separate, but slightly related angle, there was a paper released a couple months back (see CNN Story) that came to the conclusion that something very weird happened in the Solar system about 65 million years ago. Studies of ocean sediment patterns reveal that the earth has been going through a 400,000 year climate cycle that is directly related to planetary distance. The problem is that these patterns change at about 65 million years ago. This is obviously related to the asteriod thast knocked of the dinosaurs.

    Fringe groups have been looking at this and speculated that this is when the asteroids were formed, and when mars got its weird pattern of craters that cover only half the planet. You can download a nicely done 60 page document of this sort of thing (PDF - HTML). Unfortunately, the authors like to occasionally bring in things that are not relevant, so it sort of ruins the flavor, but it is not bad, and interesting reading, even if you do not take it seriously.

    Which of course goes to the question in orbital mechanics of how close can you have a gas giant before it messes things up.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  107. Re:The result of my attempted post... by kst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In case you didn't notice, 277205 hours ago (well, now about 277206 hours) was January 1, 1970, aka the Unix epoch. Some timestamp was incorrectly set to 0 (or perhaps -1).

  108. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the large Jupiter-like planet was large enough to be somewhat star-like (generate its own heat and light), a smaller moon could possibly exist in an Earth-like state.

  109. Re:Why should I care? by csbruce · · Score: 1

    I would expect that we could stop world hunger within six months if we really wanted to. But we don't.

  110. Re:Am I the only one who remembers her Newton? by LMCBoy · · Score: 1
    You're right that when they say "circular orbit", they mean "nearly circular orbit". However, circular orbits are perfectly stable. They are simply a special case of the elliptical orbit, with the two foci at the same point.

    To the original post: Most of the extrasolar planets found so far have orbits that are far more elliptical than any planets in our system. And many of the detections are well above the limits of our abilities (depends on the mass and size of the orbit). Check out these radial velocity diagrams. (Click on the star name to see its plot)

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  111. Re:Why should I care? by Leven+Valera · · Score: 1

    And despite what you believe, there are no green women who beg to be shown more of this Earth thing called kissing.

    Much apologies to Chris Barrie and Craig Charles, Rob Grant, Doug Naylor, and the rest of the Dwarfers.

    --
    Woot w00t w007.
  112. Weebles wooble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but they don't fall down.

  113. Re:Too bad by norculf · · Score: 1

    The fact that they are made of gas doesn't help much either.

  114. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are *your* details, Anonymous Coward? It's funny when Jews write messages like yours, then they wonder why everybody hates them.

    Besides, it seems to me that *you're* the one making threats. Maybe it's your account that should be pulled.

  115. Re:Why look? by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

    do a web search on "quantum communication". Granted, most of the stuff is hypothesis and conjecture, but a few of the pages i came across mentioned actual sucessful tests. but if you look at the replies a couple Parents up, i responded to someone else's posts with some interesting tidbits. Put them in your pipe, ignite, and inhale deeply. No, no one's made a communication device that utilizes this concept, but quantum teleportation has been observed.

    Fortunately, for all the masses of people who like to say something will never work, because it reinforces their view of reality, there are a few who persue their goals anyway. If everyone had been content that the microprocessor, rocketship, telephone, relational database, lazer beam, nuclear reactor et al were pipe dreams, we wouldn't have them (of course, a luddite would respond that we're better off without such things, but luddites shouldn't be using computers in the first place).

    If current research on cold fusion and the room-temperature superconductor suddenly vanished, we would be missing out on an advancement that would radically improve the quality of human life, as we would if everyone just threw up their hands and said "screw quantum mechanics, this shit's just too hard!".

    Saying that something would or would not work based on the math involved is a mistake that, thankfully, few theoretical scientists get too tripped up over. Many of the equasions that we use to describe physical reality have been "dumbed down" by popular scholars who "didn't know what all those fiddly extra variables were for", and the imminant marrige of the theories of gravity and quantum physics may bring about a drastic revision in how we describe what goes on around us.

  116. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this some kind of one-man SlashDot drama? I find it hard to believe that someone could be baited so much to make threats of murder from some silly boldfaced trolling.

    Anyway, if this isn't some elaborate play, then it's kind of disturbing how upset this person is over some relatively harmless anti-semetic comments. Saying that <race> sucks isn't nearly as bad as threatening to kill an individual for saying it, although both are bad.

    Of course, what is bad? And what does this have to do with gas planets with circular orbits around Ursae Majoris or whatever funny latin-named star?

  117. Re:Too bad by mcfiddish · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here's a thing not really talked about. If a moon of a large planet harbours life, they'd have to be orbiting in a perpindicular plane to the rest of the solar system to sustain it. Pretty unlikely. And if they weren't, they'd disappear behind the planet every 'night' for long periods. Hence, you've got a moon with huge long nights, freezing the planet, and long hot days. The only way round it is an incredibly fast orbit, which would stuff everything up.

    I don't think this is an issue for a couple of reasons.

    First of all, gas giants are massive, and hence the satellites will orbit pretty quickly. Io is about the same distance from Jupiter as the moon is from the earth, and its orbital period is about two days. It would only be in eclipse for a few hours. And that would only affect the Jupiter-facing side. The other side would have a normal day/night cycle.

    Secondly, the amount of time spent in the gas giant's shadow is dependent on the planet's axial tilt. Jupiter is at 3 degrees, so the Galilean satellites go into eclipse pretty much on every orbit. (Callisto may be an exception near the solstices). Saturn's tilt is 27 degrees, so the only time a satellite would go into eclipse is if it's close to the equinox, or if it's really close, in which case it would be torn up into rings.

    I would worry about the radiation around gas giants. If a satellite is close in, it would get bombarded by a lot of radiation, unless it had a strong magnetic field. If it was far away, it would rotate slowly and I don't know how that would affect the day/night temperatures.

    Another thing to worry about is getting hit by meteors - the gas giant has a huge gravity well and will be pulling stuff towards it all of the time. Catastrophic impacts probably wouldn't be too uncommon.

  118. Re:Why should I care? by dingbat_hp · · Score: 2

    There's only ever been one justification for the US space program:

    Bombing the crap out of Russia

    All of that early rocket research was focussed on big missiles, dropping bigger and bigger bombs. By the time some real biggies (Redstone, Atlas) started flying, some bright spark realised that they could carry an astronaut too. OK, so space exploration is cool, but it was the nukes that got the funding through Congress.

    Since the mid-60s and the clearly established capacity to crisp Moscow to a cinder, that would even stick to Trevor's beloved frying pans, the need for NASA has waned somewhat. Exploration is still cool, a few people still think it's worth spending money on - but the defence budget money doesn't flow anything like as easily as it used to.

    Secondly, America is the richest country on the planet. You've already got cable, drugs and big cars - what else are you going to spend the surplus on ? I'd much rather spend it on looking out into space than have Bush spend it on trying to nuke "rogue states" that most US citizens can't even find on a map.

  119. Re:Why look? by norton_I · · Score: 3, Insightful
    the concept of molecular bifurcation (bifrucation?) communication is steadily gaining acceptance as something that might be viable in the not-so-distant future.


    Only in the world of science fiction and dilber cartoons. The idea of "molecular bifurcation communication" in all of its forms is based on a misinterpretation of J.S. Bells' theorom (referenced in the Dilbert cartoon where he tries to make one, sorry I don't have the date).

    Bells theorom losely states that it is possible to construct two particle systems -- two photon, two halves of a molecular decay, whatever -- in which the state of the system cannot be explained in terms of the state of part 1, and the state of part 2.. ie, there is some non-local correlation between them.

    However, you can't actually *do* anything to one particle and have it affect the other. You can only see this correlation after you measure both particles, and compare their states -- which means you have to communicate over a "classical" channel first.

    As for FTL travel/communication in general, I am not an expert in general relativity, and it is still actually an open question, but I don't believe that FTL communication will ever be possible.

  120. Danger Will Robinson... Warning... by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Oh. A possible new planetary system? Just wait. Microsoft will figure out a way to comingle it with Windows HC (Hunk Of Crap) and patent it so we can't talk about it.

    And of course, with out the "Windows PS" (Planetary System or Piece of Scheist, take your pick) installed, "Windows VP" (Virus Prone) will become crippled and not run, much like it does anyway...

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
  121. Re:Why should I care? by Trevor+Goodchild · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Oh, what a witty comeback.

    That's all you space cadets can ever come up with. Have you ever noticed that? Whenever somebody has the temerity to criticize NASA, the only argument in favor is fucking cookware?

    Sweet mother of Jesus, how would we ever survive on this planet if it were not for Teflon?!? Why, just think of what it was like back in the olden days! I can not count the number of wars that were directly attributable to some general having his pancake stick to the skillet! And the plagues! God, who could forget those! Recent scientific studies have concluded that the Black Death was not caused by fleas from rats as once suspected, but in fact was due to a unique case of tendonitis that resulted from scouring the fry pan when the yak burgers prevelant at the time where left on a bit too long and some of the icky bits got burned right onto the bottom.

    And there's more! Did you know that Teflon has reduced the number of catastrophic earthquakes by over 74%?!? And that non-stick cookware has been identified as a leading candidate as an AIDS vaccine? Or that traffic fatalities involving nuns could be eliminated entirely is their habits were coated with Teflon?

    I must say that from the vantage point of 40 years of history, the billions and billions of dollars spent blasting monkeys into space has resulted in some of the mst important developments known to man. Clearly the invention of Teflon was well worth the cost, and the impact on society simply cannot be understated.

  122. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  123. Re:Are circular orbits really less common? by norton_I · · Score: 2

    We also have planetary formation theories, which while we don't have a lot of data to test them, can be useful.

    The problem is that not only do you need a planet with a circular orbit in the habitation zone, you need a solar system free of other massive objects with eliptical orbits. If 50 % of the large objects in a solar system have highly elliptical orbits, it is going to be hard for life to form on one of the other 50%. If you have a large gas giant like Jupiter in a circular orbit, it is going to capture or eject most of those objects, leaving the habitible zone relatively clean.

  124. Re:Why look? by Newander · · Score: 1

    Water is considered a requirement for life because so many chemical reactions occur in aqueous solutions. The main assumption is that for life you need chemical reactions. I also believe that oxygen is considered a good indicator because oxygen gas is hard to keep around; it's always getting tied up with other chemicals.

    --

    Jesus saves and takes half damage.

  125. Re:Why look? by Newander · · Score: 1

    Damn dirty apes!

    --

    Jesus saves and takes half damage.

  126. Re:Too bad by mandolin · · Score: 1
    some of jupiter's moon's have atmospheres, so it is possible

    No Jupiter moon I know of has an atmosphere more substancial than that of Mercury (ie practically none at all). You may be thinking of Titan, which orbits around Saturn.

  127. Re:more stats by pavonis · · Score: 2
    Furthermore, given that Jupiter orbits the Sun at 5.2 AU, preventing planet formation between 2 and 5 AU (cf. our asteroid belt), and that one is at 2.1 AU from its star, I don't see how an Earth-like planet could be within that star's habitable zone, between 1 and 1.5 AU.

    There is considerable study going on at the present time in things like planetary in-migration. Just because a planet is currently at 2.1 AU, doesn't mean that it has always been there. Other possibilities include resonances and trojan points. It's quite hard to simulate this well, but at our present state of knowledge it is definitely not time to rule things out categorically.

  128. Re:Why look? by IronChef · · Score: 2


    I don't think you are thinking about the laser spot thought experiment the right way. Imagine a giant movie screen, or a giant screen of photodetectors. Wave the spot around on that. The "spot" could have data encoded in it, and it could travel from one end of screen to the other just as fast as you please. The only point of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that things can, in fact, move faster than light -- but in the end it's a "so what" situation.

    Ask Dad about a giant rotating disk. As a thought experiment it is trivial to see that for a big enough disk, the edge will move faster than light. It's also trivial to demonstrate how even if such a thing could be built, it would be useless for communication. No free ride.

  129. Re:Why look? by Royster · · Score: 2

    The only confirmed life on other planets far away will be from "Intellegent Life" (Meaning they have access to radios).

    Unfortunately, there is only a very short span of time between "Intelligent Life" with access to radios and access to television which destroys all "Intelligent Life" it comes into contact with.

    Now, get your hands of my TiVo control. <grrrr>

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  130. Re:Interplanetary gaming by jx100 · · Score: 1

    Bleh! Think of the horrible ping times!

  131. Re:Why look? by praedor · · Score: 1

    Not true. Confirmation of life on another distant planet would derive from a planet having an oxygen-rich atmosphere. There is NO way for the earth's atmosphere to exist as it does by accident - only life produces such a highly oxidizing atmosphere rich in oxygen.

    If you have a sensitive detector and spectrophotometer and you are able to point it at a distant planet (we're talking future tech here) and you detect an oxygen-rich atmosphere, you have just confirmed that life exists on that planet. It may not be technological life and could well be algae/plant/bacterial, but it is life.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  132. Re:Too bad by Pedrito · · Score: 2

    Actually, that's not entirely true. The orbits of the moons would not have to be perpindicular to the plane of the system. In fact, if they were, that would probably be worse since their rotation would probably be parallel to their orbit, meaning they'd have one light side and one dark side, all the time. Not particularly good for life either.

    Remember, the moon would be orbiting pretty far away from the planet. It would only be blocked by the planet for very short periods of time in it's orbit. Draw a circle and call it the planet, then draw a circle around that about 3 or 4 times the diameter of the planet, and call it the orbit. Now consider one direction where the sun is shining from. And look at how much of that orbit is blocked by the sun. I think this is a pretty realistic model.

    Therefore, life could easily flourish in this type of environment. The cold darkness would last for a few days at a time. Not enough to cause any major heat change beyond what we experience between summer in the tropics and winter in northern Canada.

    That's definitely a habitable range.

  133. just a test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Easy does it!

    This comment has been submitted already, 277205 hours , 7 minutes ago. No need to try again.

    Nice to see the slashcode is as tight as ever

    //ct

    1. Re:just a test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting reply on comments.pl and submitting a comment. It's been 7 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

  134. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Important message - we of the planet fatnm have noe finished the work on our anti moron nazi ray and are ready to test it. Your planet has been chosen as a test site for this weapon. In 48 of your earth hours all nazi morons will be eradicated by our super weapon, which causes them to die by drowning in their own bile whilst their rectums explode.

    Thank you for your co-operation

    Rabbi Schliemel - commander first battle fleet

    PS i still dont undertstand why this fuckhead hasnt had his account terminated - not one of his posts has been anything but a racist piece of crap

  135. Re:more stats by Royster · · Score: 2

    Hmmmm. I thaought that Bode's "Law" was a little more accurate than that.

    But, OK. We have Earth a 1.0 AU, Mars at 1.5AU and Jupiter at 5.2AU. That puts the place of the missing planet at about 2.25AU.

    The precise location of the habitable zone is dependant on the star's brightness, but lets assume that it's in roughly the same place as on Earth.

    That means that this star's asteroid belt is about at Mars location leaving room for a rocky planet at or slightly in closer to that star than Earth is to the Sun.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  136. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is difficult to argue with you, you hold no steady position.

    Here's something better you can do: hop in your Mustang, turn the stereo up, and take a nice long drive. Well, not tonight... Maybe tomorrow.

  137. Re:Why look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    recent changes to Quake3Arena networking code result in significant bandwidth reduction. typical interstellar ping times are now under 10e4.

  138. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to the Turdburger donkey dick eater you are.

  139. Amen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen.

  140. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawn,

    So you feel that important things should be left unmodded while unimportant things should be modded down? Does it make you feel superior to others to take away their moderations? Do you feel that only those posts that you deem important are *real*?

    You say that it is I who does not understand before posting, but it is you who continues to insist that moderation downwards is a more important task than moderating upwards. You obviously have not understood the point of moderation points.

    I'm afraid that your concept of productive discourse, much like that of the original poster to this thread, has evolved inwards to the point that spending time conversing with you is like staring into the core of a black hole. Your ideas are so dense that not even flashes of brilliance can escape, if they were to appear in the first place. Let me end this with the same thing I wrote in my first response to this thread.

    It is because you are a self-absorbed asshole and do not understand that common discourse does not follow the idiotic rules that you have conjured up in that lizard brain you're sporting between those tiny ears.

    Relax, fuckhead, and try to contribute instead of posting inanities like this one.

  141. Re:Amen brother! by susano_otter · · Score: 2

    So let me see if I understand this: "world hunger" is not due to any shortage of resources, but instead is caused by resource-allocation decisions made by those in power. Most of those who can influence these decisions are too apathetic, uninformed, or distracted to do so.

    Therefore, no new technology needs to be developed to solve world hunger. Rather, a new ethic, or value-set must be developed. It is the philosophers, the ethicists, the gurus who will solve world hunger - by developing and disseminating new social paradigms. This leaves us free to spend our surplus material resources on space exploration.

    Of course, it could be argued that this NASA-thingy is one of the many distractions that impede us from seriously considering the humanitarian problems (such as world hunger) that plague us today. In that sense, it probably should be abandoned as proposed.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  142. Sampling bias by isomeme · · Score: 2
    Circular orbits are less common than highly elliptical orbits, and are more promising.

    Actually, in the planets detected thus far, ciruclar orbits extremely close to the star and highly elliptical orbits are about equally common, with big circular orbits indeed being much rarer.

    However, it should be noted that the stellar-wobbling method of planet detection is highly biased toward detecting large (Jupiter sized or larger) planets in close orbits. We can't even detect Earth-sized planets, or a Saturn-sized planet at Saturn's distance from its star. So we are getting a very distorted picture of what constitutes a "common" type of planet. It may be that Earth-sized planets in wide circular orbits are the norm, but we won't ever see them with the tools currently available.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
  143. Re:Why look? by IronChef · · Score: 2

    Gah! Show me who's built the gadget. Last I read up on this topic, the paper went on at great length about how it was not possible to exploit the phenomenon for purposes of communication. Now I have to go look for it because you have watched too much Star Trek.

    Here, check out the math.

    Here's the critical bit:

    "An important first result in quantum information is "no-cloning" first proposed by Wooters and Zurek (1982) and Dieks (1982). It states that:
    It is impossible to clone an arbitrary unknown quantum state."

    [Proof follows]

    "Interestingly, no-cloning rules out a mechanism for using entanglement to send superluminal classical signals. Suppose Alice will choose between performing a {|0>, |1>} basis or {|+>, |->} basis measurement. Bob can determine which she did instantaneously if he can produce multiple copies of his entangled twin particle."

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Spock. It doesn't work, it doesn't work, nyah nyah nyah!

  144. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't talk to Nader, he's very busy planning for his future campaigns. However, you can talk to a hearful RJHN supporter if you're in the MIT area. Interested?

  145. Re:Why look? by IronChef · · Score: 2


    If you have a big movie screen sufficiently far away, and you wave a laser pointer across it, the spot of light on the screen will be moving faster than light itself. The thought experiment works with a gigantic rotating disk too, but you can't build one, whereas you can "do it yourself" with light.

    The point is that there ARE possible superluminal events, but that they are ultimately useless for actually transmitting information.

  146. we found the greys!! by greendot · · Score: 1

    They "Greys" were supposed to be from Ursa Major! ;) Now it looks like all those abducties may not have been blowing as much smoke as was thought.

    1. Re:we found the greys!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zeta Reticuli, actually.

      Or at least that's the consensus way of interpreting the bunch of dots that Betty Hill drew for some UFO investigators some decades ago...

      Just for interest's sake, from the perspective of Zeta 2 Retculi, Sol has been passing within 1/2 degree or so of Zeta 1 Reticuli for the past few thousands of years.

  147. Re:Why should I care? by Alexxis · · Score: 1

    Hey, you forget Velcro, too :)

  148. Re:Too bad by bonoboy · · Score: 2

    Hm. So then there's only ever a dark side in the time that the moon's behind the mother planet and you're facing away from it. THe other 3/4 of the time, you've got a sun on one side and a gas giant heating the 'night' side. It's still not stable, and 'winter' (behind the giant) would be a shitload colder than summer. Bugger, eh?

    --
    toeslikefingers.com - because
  149. Re:Why look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok so they find oxygen... so what, because some things on our planet require oxygen to live means creatures on other planets are going to need it?? The same goes for water why is water a universal requirement for life, is that only because it's necessary here?

  150. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, my car eats Mustangs for lunch. But a convertable would be nice.

    Anyway, sorry to have frustrated you. It really isn't that I am moving my position, I'm just don't ascribe to the strawman arguments you keep accusing me. Its a common mistake. No harm done, your forgiven.

  151. So... by gatesh8r · · Score: 1
    After a long time crunching SETI units in places where there isn't a fat chance in hell, why can't we just pluck out canadiates from the stars to where you do have a fat chance of getting these guys contacted?

    I can just imagine it... "All Your Base"... naaaahhhhhhh, I'll spare everyone for now.

    --
    Karma whorin' since 1999
  152. Am I the only one who remembers her Newton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think this is Yet Another Case of the media oversimplifying for the Huddled Masses(tm). Last I heard, there were NO "circular orbits"...at least, not STABLE circular orbits. A circular orbit is, by definition, an UNSTABLE one. But I guess you can't go publishing an article for the Skulls Full of Mush with the phrase "an orbit with a high degree of circularity" in it without causing some of those skulls to explode. So we get this ridiculous oversimplification.

    All of our planets are in elliptical orbits around the Sun, just ellipses with a greater degree of circularity than the other planetary systems they have found to date. They are CLOSE to circular, which keeps the gas giants from going through the freeze-bake cycle they refer to, but Newtonian physics (which DOES still govern when referring to planetary motion) clearly maps out that planetary motion is elliptical, not circular.

    Even in Ursa Major, I'm afraid. This "circular orbit" stuff is comet gas.

    Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum

  153. figures... by Skeezix · · Score: 2
    ...it'd be 47

  154. Re:killing serious discussion by whiteranger99x · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh suuuuure!! mark everyone ELSE as funny and me as a troll!

    Oh wait a minute, i DID troll...my bad :)

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  155. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what sort of a planet would care about scum like you anyway - they would probably be more concerned about people who have undergone enough evolutionary development to have developed opposable thumbs and whos knuckles dont drag on the ground when they walk - which lets you out dipshit.

    You know the nazi's were scary because they knew how to be subtle and attract people outside the lunatic fringe - which is why they were a threat and you are not.

    And before you say it yep im jewish, 6 foot 5 and i have a license to carry a concealed handgun (9mm glock) and i'm a pistol champion and lost my grandparents in Belsen....

    So- Care to give me your street address and state so we can chat about this in person?

  156. Re:Are circular orbits really less common? by DerKlempner · · Score: 1

    >Circular orbits are less common than highly elliptical orbits, and are more promising.

    Is that true? If so, how do we know?

    Yes, it's true for the extrasolar planets we've already found, and also true for the planets in our own solar system.

    Remember that the only way we can currently detect planets outside our own solar system is by their gravitational influence on the primary star

    Not true. We can also detect extrasolar planets due to the amount of their sun's light they block when they pass between us and their star. Unfortunately, (statistically) less planets will be found with this method (than by gravitational influence), as all probable planetary systems would need to be viewed edge-on from the Earth's vantage point.

    We're seeing lots of massive gas giants in orbits that bring them close to their primaries because we can't (yet) detect anything else.

    Only due to the fact that we haven't been able to make our instruments sensitive enough to be capable of detecting extrasolar planets further away from those stars that would have smaller gravitational tugs due to the distance. Or perhaps, since studies of the effects of the bodies on the stars are often done over shorter spans of time (days, weeks, or months), and orbital periods of planets further away from the star would more likely be longer than bodies closer to the star - possibly hundreds of years, like Neptune's or Pluto's - the planets are just not being detected because the body has yet to reveal itself to the detection methods.

    --
    UNIX: Find it, fsck it, forget it.
  157. You don't need communication to confirm life by jesterzog · · Score: 2

    The only confirmed life on other planets far away will be from "Intellegent Life" (Meaning they have access to radios).

    This isn't true at all, although I guess you can seriously restrict your definition of confirm to make it true.

    If you can examine the atmosphere of a planet, you can tell how much of what elements are present. From this it's possible to make a good judgement if life was needed to generate it.

    Examining the atmosphere from this distance isn't exactly easy, but it's possible under the right circumstances. You might watch changes to a light spectrum as the planet occults a background star, or compare refracted light from the star that it's orbiting.

    Don't underestimate the amount of information that data-starved astronomers can get out of what's available, though.

  158. Replacement for Sol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wish! Spurs could really need one, after that traitor left for A*senal.

  159. Re:Why should I care? by fors · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Show me one government research program that has come anywhere close to the return on investment that the space program has. In tax dollars and technology the space program has amply repaid it's development and if we can ever get the cost to orbit down the benefit to humanity will be immense. But I digress, it is amazing to me that somebody so anti tech as you have just made yourself to be could turn on a computer let alone find Slashdot. The corrective fixes for Hubble are promising to bring better than 20-20 vision to those of us cursed to wear glasses. Egg crate foam matresses such as are used for bed-ridden patients are an offshoot of tech developed to keep astronauts well. GPS is and will only get more useful at keeping people from getting lost or finding airplane crashes and many other uses. Cell phone technology has brought communications to many parts of the world where the infrastructure isn't there for good reliable landlines. Satellite tv has brought the news and education to many parts of the world that had no idea of what was happening in the rest of the world. Those are only the things I could think of real quick that NASA and government funded space research have brought about. There are a whole lot more. So get off your high horse and realize that money spent on research is never in vain. There will always be some kind of payoff even if it isn't obvious to idiots like yourself.

    --
    "If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
  160. At least try to make up lies and stereotypes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you even reaalize what you aare saying? Not that you give a damn about anything even remotely related to the truth, but it seems kinda pointless for you to make up nasty lies that don't even approach plausibility.

    For instance, while I'm neither jewish ethnically or religiously, it seems rather obvious to me that communism is completely antithetical to judaism. Whether it is soviet-style or chinese communism, both are (or in the case of soviet communism "were") violently at odds with any religion or philosophy dealing with god, allah, yhwh, whatever. Be it because they have some community strength that might threaten the powers that be, or their excuse that religion is the "opiate of the people", communists hate jews as much as you do retard. Not that you would notice.

    Maybe you meant socialists? Not that socialism is even close to what people generally mean when they say "communism", but again we run into problems. What most people describe as socialism usually includes public welfare, social policies, increased free speech rights to the extreme that they encourage or promote obscenity, equal rights, for both women and blacks, etc. You see, you also call jews money thieving bankers and some other things I hesitate to repeat. Don't you know that most bankers, and god, I'd say that is well over 90% at a guess, are inclined to support and promote conservative administrations? Usually, that means conservative both in the economic sense (bankers tend to want to keep the money they have) and in a social sense (they don't want to give the money away in taxes, or threaten social stability by allowing the "lower classes" to run wild). Socialism is again, at odds with the stereotypes of jews that you'd have some of the dumber slashdot readers believe.

    As far as that goes, your hero/buttboy Hitler, he was just as stupid as yourself. He arrogantly and mistakenly believed that aryans, as if there were such a race, were superior to other people, especially jews, in every concievable way.

    "Aryans" lost the war. Hardly a superior military.
    "Aryans" came home from the 1936 Olympics as losers. Hardly superior athletes.
    "Aryans" continue to be publicly derided, and in many countries aren't free to spew their hatemongering beliefs. Hardly superior politicians, I would say. Even in the US here, you're only allowed to do it, because 200some years ago, we decided to let everyone say what they will, your right to say such is hardly a special advantage.
    "Aryans" smell bad. You, for instance, reek of the combined odors of 2 day old diarhea, rotten eggs, and the breath of 45 yr old prostitutes who have just finished guzzling 2-5 quarts of cum. There have even been scientific studies that substantiate the accusations that aryans like yourself are generally closet homosexuals unable to admit to themselves that they like big thick cocks rammed up their asses with no lubrication, for hours at end. I myself believe these studies to be flawed however, the few "neo-nazi" type people I have ever known seemed more inclined to skulk around at night rapind whatever farm animals were out of earshot of the sleeping farmers. Chickens, horses, cows, you name it... and this beastiality was probably of the gay variety. Admit it, you like huge horse cocks pumping gallons of stinky horse cum down that pitiful little throat of yours, the tiny throat that your neo-nazi leader says feels so velvety around his tiny aryan prick. Not that I believe that it's long enough to make it to the back of your throat, but you get the idea.

    You know how it is, when a few of the other nazi's are pumping their inferior seed into that slimy ass of yours, and you're screaming at the top of your lungs, with that womenish voice that you can't quite hide, "fuck me Hitler, fuck me harder, fuck me fuck me fuck me, oooh baaaabbbbyyy!". Do you like it when they do that? Well good for you, but the rest of us would appreciate it if you kept that queer, cretinous rhetoric of yours to yourself, and let us talk about more important things. Like wouldn't it be cool to have a beowulf cluster of....

  161. Re:Why look? by Sentry23 · · Score: 1
    hmmm most likely it will go like this..

    us:Hi them:a/s/l ? us: /ignore them

  162. Not exactly by Vidmaster_Steve · · Score: 1

    If we assume that there are intelligent, communicative extraterrestials there, and that they were listening to us with their radio telescopes, and they picked up the old broadcasts of I Love Lucy, then were able to convert these radio signals to the 525 line, 60 hertz NTSC format, and then watch them, they would not be in violation of the DMCA, as they would be decoding an ANALOG signal that is 'cast out into free air. Last time that I checked, a few of my engineering buds at the University had reverse-engineered an old RCA teevee set, and built their own out of varied electronics parts that one of them had lying around in his workshop (minus the crt, which if these aliens are advanced enough to build radio telescopes, it would be assumed that they would have the technology to have built a simple cathode-ray tube). Then, in another 20 or so years, these aliens will see the utter horridity of those Hanna-Barbera craptoons, and mobilize their battlefleet to wipe out a civilization that dared defile the airwaves with such filth. --Steve, out

    --
    Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
  163. Re:killing serious discussion by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    Shortly after your cosmetological experiments with a curling iron and motor oil, Slashdot made it so you can't post and moderate in the same discussion.

    In the mean time not all of us have intelligent input on all topics. So the logical conclusion is if you have something to say, say it. If you don't --moderate.

    Thank you for your time,

  164. Re:killing serious discussion by mshiltonj · · Score: 1
    Goto segfault.org and be funny there!!! stop posting if you dont have anything serious to say!!!

    Well said!

    It doesn't help that moderators tend to mod up funny remarks to 4 or 5 and the majority of regular, useful comments are 2 or 3.

    If I set up my filter to be 4 or higher, I'll get 9 comments, 7 of which are labeled as 'Funny'.

    Because moderaters always mod up funny posts, the karma whores rush in on an active thread and post their most comical comments, and the cycle is repeated.

  165. Re:killing serious discussion by csbruce · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe things become more serious once all of the obvious jokes are used up.

  166. Re:Finally, we found something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that would be the fermi paradox, thank you very much

  167. Re:Why look? by Boomer2 · · Score: 1

    A karma score of 1??!! Come on...that was funny! And he makes a good point: How much more advanced will another race/planet/society need to be to come over here and dance on our faces?

  168. Re:You thought it was unlikely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many galaxies are there?
    What is life beyond Earth?
    How do you know?

  169. Re:Sol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is an extremely self-indulgent and affected way to refer to our solar system.

  170. Re:Too bad by emir · · Score: 1

    From the article: "This is the only star that has a big empty zone in the habitable region around a star, the place where water could exist."

    --
    -- http://electronicintifada.net --
  171. Re:Why look? by papertech · · Score: 1

    Which is probably exactly what the other forms of intelligent life out there are saying right now, to justify not looking for us.

    Wouldn't it be a shame.

  172. Sol? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

    What is this 'Sol' ?

    Furthermore, is its version 8 any better than its version 7?

    1. Re:Sol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun." - Douglas Adams, HHtG (R.I.P.)

      Sometimes we like to call that star a Sun.

  173. hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but I can't help myself. If you really were a jew, you'd know the improtance of protecting free speech, even when it comes from a rascist like Ralph Nader. Are you really worried that peple aren't smart enough not to be rascists just because this guy says they should be? Isn't that an insult to everyone? If you continue this violent demand for censorship, your worse then he is. What's more, you post AC, which means you are the bigger coward. If you want to take him on, YOU post the time and place. You don't call people out by asking where they live. That's pussy talk. Show how much of a man you are, and tell us where you live, or your just a cowardly jew.

    1. Re:hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its spelt hipocrisy
      Im not a troll - im pissed off that this guy can do this and keep an active account on here

      In effect slashdot are harbouring racists

      And in answer
      1. Racism is not protected under free speech - neither is suggesting that a race should be burnt in ovens, linking to images of holocaust victims etc - this is actually covered under racial villification laws and is illegal - if he printed this on a page he could be prosecuted. (do a little reading)
      2. Naah im not worried - after all the german people all saw thru morons like hitler - wake up - the price of safety is vigilance - i belong to a race that was almost exterminated - i lost family - that does sort of change your outlook on things - my race wont let it happen again - and you have some nerve - the US govt allowed companies to deal with the Nazis including allowing and protecting IBM as they sold machines to tabulate the jews going into the ovens (read a littl history) so as a nation your hands arent exactly clean.
      3. no only to the sheep who follow this tripe he posts as being the 'facts'
      4. If i really am a jew ? i dont need to justify it as my race and religion should not be an isue - this guy makes it so and thus i do - you have to take my word for it. (i could give a fuck if you dont)
      5. I dont care - i dont read slashdot for this crap - i read and post here for news - this guy has spent the last month or so posting the same shit over and over and over - i have asked for it to be stopped (and have others) and it hasnt been - i will thus attack him wherever i see him until he gives up and goes away - i didnt choose the battle or start it but i am dammned if im going to let a wimp like him and his disgusting ideas take precedence over other people.
      6. I have an account for posts on topic - i have karma in that account - i could make up a fake account like this guy but i dont - i post AC - and so did you - how DO you spell hypocrisy again?
      7. I dont need to name the time and the place, i didnt start this crap - this guy thinks all jews are weak and sick and easy targets - thus he obviously wants to have a crack at us - i offer him the opportunity to do so - on his terms - thats my right. Thats the thing with these vermin - they are brave and hide in the shadows and attack only when they have superior numbers and secrecy on their side - im calling him out - thats my right and you dont have to like it.
      8. Pussy talk ? im not even going to comment on that shit - let him set a time and place and we will see who the pussy is
      9. And then you resort to a racial slur - thus invalidating any point you could have made and proving that you are no better than he is.

      I dont need to justify myself - you guys think this is free speech or even funny? i lost gradparents, aunts, uncles and cousins to the ovens of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belsen and yet this guy is free to post comments that make a mockery of this and insult my race ? fuck you in fact - i would make this comment to the liberal's who think this guy has a right - having your race and family almost exterminated tends to focus the mind somewhat.

      I aplogise if this offends some people - it is Off topic and has no place here - simple really - terminate the users account and i will stop posting this stuff and we can get back to the real world - until then i'm going to keep attacking him when he posts - im sick of the non attention paid to this buy the likes of Taco and friends - if this guy was saying the same things about linux and linus one wonders....

      So Ralph - Havent posted since i called your bluff have you my feeble little worm - not so brave now are you - must be a shock to realise us jews arent all old and asthmatic ehh..?

  174. Re:Why should I care? by Boomer2 · · Score: 1

    You're right. Let's get rid of our Teflon pans in protest.

  175. Attention: by bluephone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ok, they're about 45 light years away, which means that they're probably watching I Love Lucy, a great comedy show. Sadly, by decoding the signal, they're violating the DMCA. I'm sorry, but they're going to have to be arrested. Anyone know if California courts take Buckazoids for bail?

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    1. Re:Attention: by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      In a not-so-startling turn of events, the City of Los Angelas has determined that the star system goes above the city every night, so the inhabitants owe tons of money in back taxes.

      Dr. Hugh G. Rection, of the astronomy department at The University of Texas at Tumbleweed Gulch, has pointed out that Ursa Major is a cirucumpolar constellation and that no part of it can be farther south than 50 degrees north. He then pointed out that Los Angelas is much too far south to be anywhere near 50 degrees north.

      A spokesman for the Los Angelas Department of Tax Weasels, a Mr. Stu Pidasso, said that Dr. Rection is completely off base, that his maps were made by corporations known to use tax dodges, and that Dr. Rection is a confirmed golfer and has never denied being a cuacasian. Mr. Pidasso also said, through teary eyes, that he's doing it for the children.

      However, upon hearing Dr. Rection's news, the Canadian government has said that it will tax all inhabitants of the 47 Ursae Majoris star system. Simultaneously, a spokesman for the Russian government, Hugh Kraniansteppes, held a press conference saying that they had tax jurisdiction. The UN quickly moved to resolve this issue, blaming it all on Zionism and American culture.

      When asked about the situation by a fawning media, Reverend Hal Snarfton said that all money should be sent by those who have suffered under the jackboot of American totalitarianism. (At least that's what we think he said, as he continued to eat his jellybean burrito and wash it down with a glass of gravy the whole time he spoke.) Reverend Snarfton then spoke for thirty minutes, live on all four networks, CNN, BBC World Service, and The Animal Planet, on the way that America silences those who speak out against it.

      David Horowitz called all of this another example of the idiocy of the left in his Salon column, but everyone ignored him because he's now a conservative.

      Days later, someone apologizes to the inhabitants of the 47 Ursa Majoris system. The response is in poorly-translated English, beginning:

      How are you gentlemen!! All your base are belong to us!!

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    2. Re:Attention: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: The DMCA has no meaning outside the boarders of the US of A.

    3. Re:Attention: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beautiful

  176. Re:Why look? by mghiggins · · Score: 1

    We can see signs of life from unintelligent life too. Oxygen in the atmosphere, for example, is highly unlikely without life (like we know it).

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are not my own; I haven't had free will since last year when aliens ate my brain.
  177. .. by vbrtrmn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fry: Are there an unlimited number of alternate universes?
    Professor: No, just one.

    --
    it's a sig, wtf?
  178. God Demands Mirror Back, Almighty Peeved by number+one+duck · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    In an incident unknown since the early 60's, Yhwh, a diety in good standing, has demanded that Earthbound scientists "return my friggen mirror". Apparently his shaving problems, as well as those of his son during his brief stint in the middle east, all stem from the inability to see one's own reflection probably.

    Science claims ignorance, swearing that it was like that when we got here, all we did was find it. The classic battle between faith and reason is expected to reach yet other heights later this week, when God discovers what we have done with His slippers.

  179. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I just tried to verify this, but it wouldn't let me cause he's already at +5 (the limit), but the last time I tried the 'moderate and post as AC' trick, /. undid my moderation (and told me it was doing it). Are you sure it took?

  180. Re:RALPH JEW HATER NADER IS A FAKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nahh im serious - he thinks he has what it takes - this Jew is big and armed and sick of this everywhere i go - i read slashdot for the technology not for this sort of shit - this guy still has an acccount to post under - thats wrong.

    I mean what i said - the guy is a fake and a wimp - he can name the place or stop posting here - enough is enough.
    YOU HERE ME NAZI - YOU WANT TO POST THAT SORT OF STUFF THEN YOU GIVE ME THE DETAILS AND COME ON DOWN SCUMBAG - WE WILL SEE HOW TOUGH YOU ARE THEN

  181. Re:Why should I care? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    "Look how long it took them to admit that evolution might be real"

    Or how long it took them to admit that *gasp* Earth revolves around the Sun!

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  182. Re:While you're at it... by h0rus · · Score: 0

    Don't waste your time trying to explain to deaf ears; They don't care to understand reason, for they are unreasonable people. :)

  183. Re:hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "if you read this then you are gay"

    Well, duh. You DID post it on Slashdot, did you not?

  184. Re:Why look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey fuck you. Us ground hogs have lived peacefully on this planet for over 9 million years, then you lousy bald apes show up, nothin but war. Well, I speak for all of us rodent-like creatures when we say "enough is enough". On top of that, you have to insult us too? I'll have you know that we gave up radio 10,000 years ago... we're already way past that. Let me get to the point though, eclectro, if you keep this up one morning you'll wake up with your balls gnawed off. That animal control guy in your neighborhood is too damn drunk to ever catch me, and besides he's scared to death to go after an animal that he thinks is dangerous... remember last year with the doberman he thought was rabid? How long did mizzus lieberman complain on the phone before he finally came out to take it away?

    Greetz to the 2 squirrels in the breakfast cereal commercial, and the gopher from Caddyshack. Just goes to show that Hollywood isn't as bigoted toward small furry creatures as is most of slashdot.

  185. You thought it was unlikely? by TACD · · Score: 1
    Well, it's even more unlikely still. I don't know whereabouts in the Galaxy this star is (by that I mean is it on the edge like us, or in the middle?), but I do know that an old article in New Scientist detailed how the vast majority of stars being scanned by SETI could not possibly harbour life.

    Only stars in the spiral arms of the Galaxy (like us) will continue for a long enough period of time without being smashed by comets and other space stuff to develop life, and this is apart from the fact that the majority of star systems are binaries. (Around which a stable-temperature orbit is impossible, as we all know;).)

    Other unique aspects of our Sun include its containing 50% more heavy elements than other stars of its age and type, and a third in the variation of brightness.

    Put briefly, the article explains how over 95% of the stars in the Galaxy could not harbour life simply due to their position in it, and that the rest must comply with very specific conditions if life is to form.

    Things might look promising for this star so far, but personally I wouldn't get my hopes up.

    --
    Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
  186. Oops.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess you found me. Oh well, cherio.

    X0X Arthur Dent

    1. Re:Oops.. by MonMotha · · Score: 1

      ...About 45 lightyears...

      From the article.
      --MonMotha

  187. Re:more stats by Soft · · Score: 2
    Wait a second here... If I understand correctly the table you link to, the planet you are talking about has almost 3 times Jupiter's mass, which is not really one where one would search life as we know it - except if it has satellites.

    Furthermore, given that Jupiter orbits the Sun at 5.2AU, preventing planet formation between 2 and 5AU (cf. our asteroid belt), and that one is at 2.1AU from its star, I don't see how an Earth-like planet could be within that star's habitable zone, between 1 and 1.5AU.

    In fact, I think the data from this table and that from the article are incompatible, even though the latter is scarce in hard numbers. Has the data been revised for the solar system of 47Uma since the table was written, or is it the article that has it all wrong?

  188. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can mode me down all you want, fuckers. THIS POSTER IS A HUMORLESS MOTHERFUCKER. I WILL BE HEARD!

  189. Re:The result of my attempted post... by koreth · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, wait, it's not a coincidence the parent is posted in this thread! This is how we can communicate with the inhabitants of these new planets -- post our messages to them on Slashdot and by the time we hit "submit" the aliens' response will already be on its way back to us.

  190. tobacco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smokin'

    What is the purpose of this. We lack the knowledge of ourselves and life and all that which is not related to hollywood. We know very little about what it takes to make a good hospitable planet - lets focus on movies. movies, movies movies.

    Life on distant planets is so boring - and with the time lag its just "so yesterday."

  191. I love this metric... by ct · · Score: 3, Funny

    By comparison, Jupiter exerts a wobble on the sun of 40 feet per second. Earth, being much lighter, exerts a wobble of about 4 inches per second, Fischer said.

    It doesn't matter how scientific the context is, the word "wobble" just makes me giggle like a fool.

    //ct

    1. Re:I love this metric... by Dreyfus · · Score: 1
      Jupiter exerts a wobble on the sun of 40 feet per second. Earth, being much lighter, exerts a wobble of about 4 inches per second

      Yes, but we earthlings shouldn't feel too bad. After all, it's not the size of your wobble that counts, but what you do with it.

  192. Re:Why look? by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

    At one time, rocket ships, wireless communication, lazer beams, and complex computer systems also existed merely in the realm of the imaginary. It is from this creative foundry that some great advancements emerge.

    I tried to track down the report I read originally about a specific test proving that this theory works, but I only found a referance to it, it's the last "snippet" in the following.

    Some snippets about the current state of quantum communication:

    >>Bennett, Brassard, Crépeau, Jozsa, Peres and Wootters have now shown how an unknown quantum state can be "teleported" from one place to another (Phys. Rev. Lett. (1993) 70
    1895). As in the previous example, Alice and Bob are each given one particle of the entangled EPR pair (see (b) in the figure). Then Alice brings together her particle and the particle in
    an unknown state, and performs jointly on those two particles a special measurement using the quantum gate M. This measurement has four possible outcomes - it is, in fact, the same
    measurement that is performed at the end of the two-bit communication process. Alice then communicates the result to Bob, by any ordinary channel, such as a telephone or radio
    transmitter, According to this result, Bob, who has the other member of the EPR pair, performs one of four operations on his particle (the same four operations that were used in the
    communication scheme) using the quantum gate U. The effect is to leave Bob's particle in exactly the same state that Alice's particle was originally in.

    So far neither of these miracles is yet practical. Quantum gates such as U can be built, but the operation performed by the gate M, sometimes called a "Bell measurement", is beyond
    present technology. Harald Weinfirter and Anton Zeilinger from the University of lnnsbruck in Austria have designed optical experiments, using so-called "parametric down-conversion
    and a simple photodetection scheme, which would allow communication with more than one bit of information per physical bit. They are developing techniques that might allow quantum
    teleportation too. But the theoretical results, whether they are practicable or not, are already of considerable importance, because they force us to fundamentally revise our concept of
    information in physics.>Entanglement Generation

    The generation of entangled photon pairs is routinely done in the laboratory using parametric down conversion. However, many of the applications contemplated involve the use of single
    photon pairs upon demand.

    1.A photon "function generator" is desired that would generate a single photon upon demand with near 100% efficiency. A more general capability would be the ability to generate a
    deterministic number of photons upon demand. Single photon rates of 1-100 MHz are desirable.
    2.Strongly nonlinear chi-3 media are needed that would produce nonlinear optical effects at the single photon level. This would lead to an efficient two photon nonlinear optical
    converter.
    3.The clear requirement for practical quantum teleportation will be to demonstrate completely deterministic generation of entangled photon pairs upon demand. The development of
    multiphoton (entangled 3, 4, 5 etc. photons) sources will be needed for error correction and repeater systems. High count rates (>1MHz) demonstrated at fiber optical wavelengths
    will be needed.

    Photon Transmission and Detection

    Generation of entanglement is but the first step in quantum communication. Efficient transmission and detection of the photons will preferably be accomplished through improvements in
    existing technologies, but the need for quantum error correction and quantum repeaters was also mentioned.

    1.As important as the requirement to generate photons on demand with high efficiency is the need to detect them with equal or superior efficiency. High efficiency, low noise, single
    photon detectors (>70-80%) operating at the telecommunications wavelengths (0.8, 1.3, or 1.55 microns) are required. Dark counts less than 100 Hz and data rates of 10 MHz-1
    GHz are desirable. Quantum nondemolition may be exploited to develop a new type of high efficiency detector.
    2.Low loss transmission links over 100 km are necessary. For fiber optical communication, it is desirable to have fiber attenuation below 0.001 dB/km. For free space line of sight
    communication or quantum key distribution, demonstration of ground-to-satellite links will require advances in adaptive optical technology.
    3.Ultimately, existing telecommunications equipment must be used for any practical quantum communication network to be implemented. It will be critical to demonstrate the
    feasibility of transmitting quantum information into, through, and out of commercial telecommunication links.
    4.Demonstrate entanglement purification, then error corrected transmission of quantum states. For superdense coding applications to become a reality, it must be demonstrated that
    robust photon pairs can be reliably transmitted and received. The objective will be to demonstrate 2 bits of information transferred per photon.>Recently, a close connection was established between nonlocality, Bell experiments, quantum communication, and quantum cryptography, on the one side,
    and quantum logic gates, quantum computing, and quantum logic, on the other. [C.H. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996)] All of them, Bell
    experiments, quantum communication/cryptographic schemes, and quantum computers use entangled systems as their inputs and the detection efficiences
    of the latter were so far very low (under 10 experiments carried out so far relied only on (nanoseconds) coincidental detections and that made them
    inconclusive in principle. [E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1388 (1995); Phys. Lett. A 212, 10 (1996)]. Recently we discovered a new kind of
    entanglement [M. Pavicic and J. Summhammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3191 (1994)] and a new preselective scheme of entangling independent systems [M.
    Pavicic, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 12, 821 (1995)] which should enable over 70 main hypothesis of the proposed project is that preselection of entangled photon
    pairs can be used for designing quantum logic gates for quantum computers, for obtaining user-ready input pairs in quantum cryptography and quantum
    communication, as well as for a long-wanted loophole-free Bell experiment, on the one hand, and that the algebraic representation of quantum logic (new
    desarguesian orthomodular lattices) can provide necessary algorithms for quantum computers, on the other. The aim of the project is to carry out all the
    elements from the hypothesis. Our basic methods will be our theory of the spin-correlated interferometry. [M. Pavicic, Physical Review A, 50, 3486
    (1994)] and our new representation of quantum logic [M. Pavicic, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 32, 1481 (1993)]. First feasible loophole-free Bell experiment and a
    feasible interaction-free experiment with over 95 so far) are expected as first testable results. An objective indicator of the importance and influence of a
    branch is the number of papers in the leading journals, e.g., Phys. Rev. Lett., Phys. Rev. A, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, and App. Phys. B. Only Phys. Rev. Lett.
    with the highest impact factor, 7.2 of all physical journals published more than 20 papers in the branches of quantum computers, cryptography, and
    communication (Bell experiments, quantum interferometry, etc.). On the other hand, we published in all the above journals recently. Therefore, the
    proposal may be ranked as important. >I have already remarked that multiparticle quantum systems are described in terms of tensor products on Hilbert space , and that this implies existence of non-local interactions between
    components of a quantum system. In principle the whole universe is entangled and you cannot take a chunk of it and isolate it from the rest. Even particles that are on two opposite sides
    of the universe are connected by entanglement. This interaction is not mediated by any conventional field known to physics such as electromagnetism or gravity. It is instantaneous and in
    clear violation of special relativity. The latter can be restored for the so called ``expectation values'', i.e., measured quantities, but the anti-relativistic correlations are still there. Bohm
    [12] demonstrates that these non-local interactions can be described in terms of a very special anti-relativistic quantum information field that does not diminish with distance and that
    binds together the whole universe. This field is not physically measurable though and the only way in which it manifests itself is through the non-local correlations. So it is, at least at this
    stage, a matter of religion whether you want to believe in it or not. But the idea is interesting and derivable entirely from the Schrödinger equation .

    Anyhow, whether you want to describe the non-local correlations in terms of Bohm's field or magic, they are there. Their existence was demonstrated experimentally by Aspect, Dalibard
    and Roger in 1982 [1] , and predicted by Bell in 1964 [5] . But they manifest themselves also in superconductivity, superfluidity, and even in the Bohm-Aharonov effect . The first two
    are macroscopic phenomena, and in the Aspect, Dalibard and Roger experiment, the existence of non-local correlations is demonstrated over a distance of . More recently
    non-local correlations were demonstrated over a distance of some .

    Quantum teleportation uses this non-local interaction, combined with a classical information channel (e.g., telephone wires) in order to transfer a quantum state, intact, from one location to
    another one. How exactly this is done will be explained in Chapter 5.

    So, there you have it. Can we communicate instantaniously now? well, no, we can't. That dosen't mean that we'll "never" be able to do it. People all over the world are doing experiments suggesting (and sometimes proving) that this could work.

    You say that FTL communication will never be possible, but it has already been observed, we just have to utilize it.

  193. Re:Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm teflon, you're glue. Whatever you say slides off me and sticks to you.

  194. Re:Why should I care? by eclectro · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm, the meaning of life would be second on my list, right behind "women". Discovering aliens seems like it could contribute to that goal.


    Actually you could put the two together and pursue "alien women". We know that the most of the people who read slashdot have more of a chance getting a date with an "alien woman" than a date with an "earth woman".

    Maybe that's why see a lot of space stories on slashdot.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  195. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...i just did that. posting ac to beat my chest about it :-)

  196. Re:killing serious discussion by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some of us come here because it's funny.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  197. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So your way of contributing to the discussion is to pound down posts that you don't like instead of raising up ones that you think are important?

    Have you even read the moderator guidelines?

  198. Hey man, you need some perspective. by nyet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lighten up.

    Ultimately, nothing matters. 99.9999% of the things that occupy your day to day thoughts really don't amount to anything. In my opinion, this makes the things that don't matter much more important than the things you do. "The less meaning, the more meaning", if you are into that "and then he was enlightened" type koan crap.

    The French have a word for that other existentialist/nihilistic crap, but I don't know how to spell it. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

  199. Re:Why look? by koreth · · Score: 2, Funny
    Worse, the conversation might go more like:

    "Hi" (45yrs)
    "Oh, so THAT'S where we left our science project." (90yrs)

  200. Why look? by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Yes, there might be life. There might be signs of biological life on a planet that's far away. But what's the point? The only confirmed life on other planets far away will be from "Intellegent Life" (Meaning they have access to radios). And even if communication is possible, there's a latency of 45 years just to say hello back and forth.

    "Hi" (45yrs)
    "Hi" (90yrs)
    "How are you?" (135yrs)
    "We're fine on this planet, how are you?" (180yrs)
    "We're doing okay. Too bad the person who originally sent you this message is dead now." (225yrs)
    Our condolences. (270yrs)

    Looking for life this way is not only difficult, but nearly futile. Anything lower than 20th century technology on their side and they won't hear us. Anything greater than 21st technology and chances are they'll find us a LOT sooner than we'll find them.

    That, and they'll be using something other than radio waves to communicate. Maybe I'm just dreaming.

    Either that, or bend space just to send an alien over here to bitchslap us and tell us how silly we are.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Why look? by eclectro · · Score: 1

      I keep on getting the feeling that if there is life out there it consists of little furry ground hog like creatures that will never be capable of building radios to send/receive messages.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:Why look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but they could be clever like the ground hogs in Caddyshack. Then we'd be in a world of hurt!

      I'm alright.

      Don't nobody worry about me...

    3. Re:Why look? by cybermage · · Score: 1

      Anything lower than 20th century technology on their side and they won't hear us. Anything greater than 21st technology and chances are they'll find us a LOT sooner than we'll find them.

      Of course, trying to communicate also suggests that we believe technology == intelligence. Kind of a problem with the whole concept of SETI. (Yes, I know this isn't about SETI.) Absence of any form of interstellar communication doesn't mean there's no intelligent life where we're looking. It could also mean they cannot or do not communicate that way, or we're too clueless to detect their more advanced stuff.

    4. Re:Why look? by Iron+Sun · · Score: 1

      But what's the point? The only confirmed life on other planets far away will be from "Intellegent Life" (Meaning they have access to radios).

      Maybe not. NASA has plans to some day launch a deep space interferometric array of Hubble-class telescopes that will be able to resolve a 25x25 pixel image of an Earth-size planet 50 light years away, and determine spectra from its atmosphere. If they find oxygen, then they can be pretty sure they've found life.

    5. Re:Why look? by Royster · · Score: 2

      Who says they have a head?

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
    6. Re:Why look? by cygnusx · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was called "My Son, The Physicist". Or something like that.

  201. just next door by GlassUser · · Score: 2, Informative
    according to my sources, this little system is only 46 lightyears away. It looks like it's going to be a while before anything can get there. Darn, and I was really hoping to hear some more info before my children were dead.

    Seriously, this doesn't really seem to be too far away. Probably related to the fact that it's easier to see something closer. If I weren't so tired, I would probably be excited!

  202. The result of my attempted post... by ct · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Easy does it!

    This comment has been submitted already, 277205 hours , 7 minutes ago. No need to try again.


    Nice to see the slashcode is as tight as ever

    //ct

  203. Re:Too bad by xXgeneric+nicknameXx · · Score: 1
    remember that these are only the planets they can detect with current technology. there could be earth-like planets closer to the star that are undetectable so far.

    as well, while the planets may not harbour life, their moons may.

    --

    My cat's breath smells like cat food.--R. Wiggums

  204. Re:killing serious discussion by whiteranger99x · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wouldn't it funny and ironic if we modded this guy's post as funny? :)

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  205. Re:Too bad by Gaccm · · Score: 1

    yup, you are missing something, Atmohsphere! you just need a think enough atmoshpere for the temperature to not be too extreme. And, i cant remember which, but some of jupiter's moon's have atmospheres, so it is possible

    --

    Only dead fish swim with the stream...
  206. Mod parent down by p_trinli · · Score: 1

    This is not insightful. It's crap.

  207. oh shut up by Vidmaster_Steve · · Score: 1
    Ye Gods, I do despise these useless goddamned hippies with their nigh-witty, somewhat-angry and poorly-thought out rantlike posts.
    I'd swear that you were some sort of DuPont shill, out there to plug the word TEFLON as many TEFLON times as you TEFLON can.
    Grow the hell up man. There really wasn't much cost involved in the development of TEFLON. TEFLON was an accidental (or serindipitous, if you will) discovery by a DuPont scientist who was working on the formula for an artificial rubber substitute, as the Japanese had control of most of the islands in the Pacific that we (the Americans) imported natural rubber from.

    TEFLON had nothing to do with the space program, and the whole thing with coating cookware with it was a marketing desicision, as they had tons and tons of the stuff just lying around at the labs that they needed to get rid of.

    So, in short. shut the fuck up, retard

    --
    Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
  208. Re:Too bad by emir · · Score: 1

    it doesnt say similar to the mars, it says between mars and jupiter + this star doesnt have to be as big as sol is. if it is smaller the habitable zone is much closer to the parent star.

    --
    -- http://electronicintifada.net --
  209. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but it also says that the inner planet is twice the size of Jupiter and has an orbit with a similar radius to Mars. The gravity of the star and planet would wipe out anything large enough to be an Earth-sized planet.

  210. Funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no mod points left :p

  211. Re:Why should I care? by Port1080 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's one way of looking at things, or you could take the opposite approach - ferinstance, quite a bit of computer tech was developed specifically for NASA's moon push in the 60's - would we be talking today if not for space exploration? As to world hunger, it might not end it in the short term, but in the long term, who's to say it won't? If cheap space transport and effect terraforming can be developed (who knows if they can, but who really thought computers were possible a relatively short 150 years ago?) we've got two planets pretty close by, Mars & Venus, that would make great big-ass farms.
    Mining other planets and asteroids has the potential to provide plenty of precious metals, and on the war front - a few extra planets to expand to could stop war quite easily - or make it 10 times as worse, but war isn't something that's going to be solved by us staying on planet either, and if anything I think the population constraints that living on just one planet provides are much more likely to cause war than anything. And of course there's species survival to think about... as a whole humans are more likely to survive indefinitely if we're on many different planets, cuz right now if we blow up this one, well, that's it. I'm sure any sci-fi hack can flesh this out better than I have, but since I'm up...

    --
    Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
  212. While you're at it... by Gen-GNU · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I am going on the assumption that the above comment was not an attempt at humor. If it was...well, I must be too tired..however, if it wasn't...

    Why should we bother wasting time exploring space when the world we live on is not perfect? You're right, it costs money, and there is not immediate gain to discoveries like this. However, there are several good reasons.

    Firstly, I suggest you watch the show connections sometime. It's a wonderful show for history if nothing else. In it, the narrator shows how each invention or discovery led to others, building the very foundation of knowledge without which the current world you live in would not be possible. Many of the inventions in that chain were considered, at the time, to be useless. Impractical. A novelty at best. However, when applied with some other idea (or 2) from other people it blossomed into a very useful invention.

    So how does this discovery help us? Directly, not at all. But indirectly, it may be very important. Remember the story within the last few days here on /. about those astronamers who were trying to prove that constants changed over time, and thus help string theory? If the advances made by others needing to look farther into space, for things exactly like this discovery, were not made, that may have never been possible.

    Another reason we should do this is that it helps explore, discover, and explain our universe.

    Societies are judged, from a historical standpoint, by the advancements they make for humanity. Think of what Rome is remembered for. The roads they made which allowed trade across great distances. The aquaducts, etc. These were made possible by taxes, just like NASA is today.

    We have the ability to explore more of the universe than anyone in history. Does this mean we should do it to the exclusion of helping suffering in the world? No. But it does mean that if we have the ability, and resources, and do nothing with it, we will be holding back progress which could ultimately help humanity expand it's knowledge of the universe we live in. And personally, I am willing to give a few tax dollars to that.

  213. Re:Too bad by bonoboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's a thing not really talked about. If a moon of a large planet harbours life, they'd have to be orbiting in a perpindicular plane to the rest of the solar system to sustain it. Pretty unlikely. And if they weren't, they'd disappear behind the planet every 'night' for long periods. Hence, you've got a moon with huge long nights, freezing the planet, and long hot days. The only way round it is an incredibly fast orbit, which would stuff everything up. Am I missing something here?

    --
    toeslikefingers.com - because
  214. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And your better and more original?

    Better a female Jewlover than a donkey fucker like you.

  215. Re:Amen brother! by vidarh · · Score: 2
    There is no shortage of food on a world basis. Spending money on growing soy would be a waste. The real problem with hunger in the world stems from a lack of distribution, and from poverty, not from a lack of food.

    As it is now, the industrialized countries throw away more than enough food each year due to "overproduction" to be able to cover for the food shortages in the rest of the world.

    So why doesn't it happen? There's no profit in it, and they're conserned that it might find it's way back to their respective countries and bring prices down.

  216. Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the planets are way too large to support human-like life.

    1. Re:Too bad by trixillion · · Score: 1

      Wow, I had never before given much consideration to the fact that the two sides of an orbiting moon would have completely different day/night cycles. Imagine what the early model of the solar system would be for a species living on the far side of such a moon. Such a species would never see the planet they were orbiting around and would be almost certainly be convinced that they were on a stationary body. Meanwhile another species on the near side would have the planet at a mostly fixed point in both their day and night skys, and would be able to tell the time at night by where in the cycle of wax and wane the planet was from the light of the star. There must be a science fiction novel with a similar setting... suggestions?

  217. Re:Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not content with accepting horse dick any longer, reports are todauy Ralph JewHater Nader killed himself by suffocation, after ramming his own head up his own arse.

    It was gross... but kinda funny too Stated Abe Goldstien, Police spokesman. Appartently his own ego swelled up and his head got trapped in the cavity.

  218. Kzinti homeworld! by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    It's been a while since I read the stories, but I'm pretty sure this is the system of the Kzinti homeworld!

    Quick, somebody get Larry Niven on the phone for a comment!

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Kzinti homeworld! by finite_automaton · · Score: 1

      Close, but no cigar ....

      "The Kzinti homeworld orbits the star 61 Ursae Majoris at a distance somewhat greater than that at which Earth orbits the sun."

    2. Re:Kzinti homeworld! by emerson · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's 61 Ursae Majoris. Closer to there than here, but not the same place at all.

  219. Re:Why should I care? by jsse · · Score: 1

    Actually you could put the two together and pursue "alien women". We know that the most of the people who read slashdot have more of a chance getting a date with an "alien woman" than a date with an "earth woman".

    An earth man asks an alien woman in the midst of love-making:

    "Honey, what is this cute little thing stuck here?"

    "Weird! He asked the very same question thousand years ago!"

    (Ok this is an old joke.)

  220. Re:killing serious discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoever modded his post funny just killed him with frustrations...hahahha! It's funny.

  221. killing serious discussion by emir · · Score: 5, Funny

    i'm probably going to be modded down for this post but i'm going to post it anyway.

    why does discussions about any science/space article has to be ruined by people who do nothing else but posts idiotic comments that has nothing to do with the article, and then some even greater idiot mods them up and we end up having like 10 comments who are at 5 Funny ? This usually kills all serious discussion on the subject. There are actually people who prefer to read something smart and not just your idiotic comments.

    Goto segfault.org and be funny there!!! stop posting if you dont have anything serious to say!!!

    --
    -- http://electronicintifada.net --
  222. Finding the star by hoofie · · Score: 1, Informative

    For all your backyard astronomers, here are the coordinates : (all information is for London at GMT)

    Position information for 16 Aug 2001 09:54:45 (Julian day number 2452137.91302)

    • Apparent RA (epoch of date): 10h 59m 30.76s
    • Apparent Dec (epoch of date): +40 25' 33.5"
    • Constellation: Ursa Major
    • Flamsteed number: 47 Ursae Majoris
    • Tycho catalog number: TYC 3009-2703-1
    • PPM number: PPM 52175
    • SAO number: SAO 43557
    • Henry Draper number: HD 95128
    • DM number: BD +41 2147
    (Courtesy of SkyMap Pro, (c) C.A.Marriott)

    This page will also show you where to look with the naked eye. (Its a few years old but the picture is very useful for finding it with the naked eye).

  223. Re:Why should I care? by p_trinli · · Score: 1

    Uh, no one said science had to be your version of "productive." See, there's this thing called curiousity...

  224. Amen brother! by Invisible+Agent · · Score: 1, Troll

    Knowing about it doesn't end world hunger. It doesn't stop war.

    Boy, are you right on this one! If only everyone embraced your message that building technology at the expense of stopping world hunger and ending war is wrong, just think of the world we'd live in.

    I mean, we could have spent all of those resources wasted creating microchips on growing soy, and we could have given the money used to build the Internet to the United Nations for better policing of world conflicts.

    Of course, then we couldn't have this conversation on Slashdot, because we'd be living in mud huts, you simpleton.

    --

    Invisible Agent
    This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
  225. Finally, we found something by MonMotha · · Score: 1

    ...or at least we're decently confident of it. It's the drake equation (right?) that says that SOMEWHERE there's almost got to be life out there, if either of the two methods used in there, maybe we can talk to little green men (or whatever they happen to be).

    --MonMotha
    (And I woulda had FP if I hadn't read the article, so please read the article before you post so as not to insult me :)

  226. more stats by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can see a quick summary of the star here They estimate that the inner planet will remain in the habitable zone for 1.2 gigayears. Right now it is on the outside edge, in the cold zone, with a 3 year orbit. but the expect the star to start to get warmer, and that may heat things up nicely for a while.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:more stats by Soft · · Score: 3, Informative
      (Hate to reply to myself...)

      OK, I found another article about this at SpaceRef. Your data is correct, and they found a second planet beyond that one. Still, I'm not sure how a rocky planet could form with those two monsters nearby; it's the "far away from the star" in the WP article that confused me. Of course, they're comparing with those other star systems discovered recently, where gas giants are insanely close to the stars...

  227. No shit, sherlock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and the possibility exists for smaller, currently undetectable rocky planets closer to the primary"

  228. Are circular orbits really less common? by kst · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Circular orbits are less common than highly elliptical orbits, and are more promising.

    Is that true? If so, how do we know?

    Remember that the only way we can currently detect planets outside our own solar system is by their gravitational influence on the primary star, and the effect is right on the edge of what we can detect. We're seeing lots of massive gas giants in orbits that bring them close to their primaries because we can't (yet) detect anything else.

    In our own solar system, the gas giants are in large circular orbits. If our solar system is typical, we're only seeing a small distorted sample of what's out there.

  229. Teflon is far more than frying pans... by Technodummy · · Score: 2



    Teflon has many uses, frying pans might be the most well known to the average joe, but some people find the other uses more important, especially those that save lives