Slashdot Mirror


SETI Gains Respect, NASA Funding

securitas writes "After having its funding cut off by Congress a decade ago, the SETI program has just received a NASA five-year grant (Google link) to participate as a lead team in the NASA Astrobiology Institute, which investigates the origin and future of life in the universe. For more information, see the Astrobiology Institute's announcement and the NASA press release."

228 comments

  1. Re:Waste of money by packeteer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As much as i would love to support the search for life in the galaxy sometimes its not a good idea. Although i do think that as humans we should try to search any money we put into a project like this is as good as gone and in finacial hard times like this we cant afford to throw around much.

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  2. Meanwhile... by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Funny

    The search for intelligent life on Earth continues.

    1. Re:Meanwhile... by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Or, the search for cynics discontinues.

      Not meant to be a troll. I hear you.

      ~S

    2. Re:Meanwhile... by hdparm · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's been found.

    3. Re:Meanwhile... by u-238 · · Score: 0

      5 funny? ...

    4. Re:Meanwhile... by turgid · · Score: 1, Funny

      Try looking outside the USA.

    5. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They have all the money so the research can only be done there. Almost ironic.

    6. Re:Meanwhile... by Ratphace · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I think that SETI is a worthwhile endeavor, but you know, one has to wonder that if my doing the seti@home thing that eventually they will run out of units for folks to process and start pawning other NASA projects off to our PC's to crunch numbers beause undoubtedly they'll have so much stuff to do that they won't be able to get it done with the cutbacks in other areas. :) So, in order to get caught up it's a good idea to start funding SETI so they can start passing their work off to the seti@home folks.

    7. Re:Meanwhile... by Golias · · Score: 0, Troll
      I think that SETI is a worthwhile endeavor

      I think it's probably humanity's worst idea since the atomic bomb.

      Here is what SETI is: We are broadcasting a signal all over space, shouting to whoever might be out there, "over here is a livable planet, rich in natural resources and populated by a primitive indigenous species which can barely manage to send you a radio signal. Please come conquer us. We might even taste good!"

      Given the near-universal nature of all evolved life to compete for survival and prosperity, while valuing other species less than its own, if there is nobody out there to hear the signal, I would call that a best-case scenario.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    8. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PARENT is the flamebait!

    9. Re:Meanwhile... by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      I (and the late Carl Sagan) would argue that any civilzation advanced much beyond our own would have to also be more peaceful, otherwise they simply wouldn't have made it that far.

      By the way, SETI LISTENS for radio broadcasts, it doesn't send them!

      --
      Jeremy
    10. Re:Meanwhile... by cornjones · · Score: 1

      dude, seti is listening. They gather data from the aricebo (sp?) telescope and parse it for patterns. It is passive. SETI/aricebo is not broadcasting (everything else we are doing does that).

      there are other space projects that we have sent up that advertise our existance and our general broadcast noise (from radio/tv/comms/etc) is probably quite extensive but SETI isn't contributing to that

    11. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it fun to pick on people who can't afford dental care? If the people in those pictures had dark skin, would you still laugh?

      Yes and yes. And beyond that seriously how much does a tooth brush and a tube of tooth paste cost? $3? I don't care what color the kids skin is... its still funny.

    12. Re:Meanwhile... by Golias · · Score: 1
      I (and the late Carl Sagan) would argue that any civilzation advanced much beyond our own would have to also be more peaceful, otherwise they simply wouldn't have made it that far.

      Yea, that Pierce Brosnon character from "Mars Attacks" thinks so to. The problem with that theory becoming more peaceful is not the only way, or even the most effective way, for a species to thrive and advance.

      As for the mod who slapped "Troll" on my post... I guess it just goes to show that humor is still utterly wasted on many who hold moderation privileges.

      By the way, SETI LISTENS for radio broadcasts, it doesn't send them!

      SETI is currently only in listen mode, but I was always told that broadcasting was also part of the project. After all, it's hard to get a pong if you don't ping. What if the hyper-intelligent beings near Proxima are also listening without sending, while we do the same as the centuries go by, not hearing from each other?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    13. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd help NASA number crunch for any purpose. I think it does more good than paying you're taxes because apparently not much of that goes to NASA anymore.

    14. Re:Meanwhile... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What if the hyper-intelligent beings near Proxima are also listening without sending, while we do the same as the centuries go by, not hearing from each other?

      Give us a couple hundred years - it's not really that long. When we have/can have space-based weapons that can defend earth, then we can start broadcasting. We're not ready yet, but we can presume that the other civilizations are not in the same few-century period that we are.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. Its nice... by soliaus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...to see that the government is dishing out some money for the advancement of programs which were at one time considered to be fantasy or science fiction. Personally, I hope to see more funding in these areas.

    -----------------
    God, is that you?

    --
    Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
    1. Re:Its nice... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...to see that the government is dishing out some money for the advancement of programs which were at one time considered to be fantasy or science fiction. Personally, I hope to see more funding in these areas.

      Fantastic works of utter fiction seem to be part and parcel with this current regime.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Its nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pah! Back in my day we had to program in BASIC on a 1MHz processor with 32KB of RAM. Commodore 64, where 32-64K is ROM...

      Hell, I futzed with the TRS-80 and earlier boxes too, I just can't remember how pathetic that equipment was...

    3. Re:Its nice... by resignator · · Score: 1

      ahh anyone here remember the old tandy 128k? man those things smoked :P

      --
      "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
    4. Re:Its nice... by frission · · Score: 1

      really? more funding/tax dollars???...i guess we do need to find a place to go since we already fscked this planet up!

    5. Re:Its nice... by I+Like+Swords!!! · · Score: 1

      Hello? Area 51? Hello?

      Oh wait... you meant overt research programs instead of covert ones. I'm sorry. I totally misread your post.

      --
      .unsigged
    6. Re:Its nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my day, it was an IBM 1130 with 8K of core, a 1 MB hard drive, and punch cards. BASIC? Nah, we used Fortran-IV, APL, or Assembler.

  4. NASA funded? by inaeldi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I didn't know NASA had enough money to donate, with all the cutbacks and whatnot.

    1. Re:NASA funded? by Mwongozi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's all relative. Even with cutbacks, it can still afford to throw a few more robots at Mars this year.

    2. Re:NASA funded? by psavo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't know NASA had enough money to donate, with all the cutbacks and whatnot.

      Sounds more like outsourcing facilities to more competent business?

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    3. Re:NASA funded? by Madcapjack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well the strange thing about funding is that it isn't necessarily like all the money that an agency has can be used how it wants to use it. NASA for example might be short of funds for space exploration but have an excess of cash to be appropriated for certain kinds of research, and no matter how NASA might wish to appropriate the fund.

    4. Re:NASA funded? by s0rbix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you look at budget summaries for 2003 compared to the proposed 2004 budget (or maybe its 2002 and proposed 2003) the funding for NASA increased a good percentage (10% if i remember correctly).

    5. Re:NASA funded? by bourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I didn't know NASA had enough money to donate, with all the cutbacks and whatnot.

      Look at it from the other direction. Do you find it odd that, in an environment where they're facing cutbacks, NASA would do something to put their name on perhaps the most publicly acknowledged (non-NASA) space-related project? Of course not!

      Between Contact and SETI@Home, SETI has mindshare in the voting public with positive connotations. Just what NASA needs right now.

    6. Re:NASA funded? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      what cutbacks? NASA's budget hasn't gone down.

    7. Re:NASA funded? by Mostly+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plus they just fired 7 astronauts

      --
      Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
    8. Re:NASA funded? by garbs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention the money they will be saving, maintaining one less shuttle.

    9. Re:NASA funded? by fehlschlag · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think NASA should use their cash to speed up the possibility of manned flights to Mars, or such.

      SETI is indeed a nice idea, but realistically, we wouldn't be able to speak to converse with the ETs within a reasonable time. There wouldn't be much benefit from picking up some remote signal other than perhaps shaking up our oft narrow-minded belief systems.

      Concentrating funds on realizable goals rather than lofty 'ifs' makes more sense.

    10. Re:NASA funded? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Five bucks says no one has the balls to mod those up as funny.

    11. Re:NASA funded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up, this is correct.

  5. this is great news by PhysicsExpert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its about time that SETI got some serious funding, its mainly been kept going by enthusiastic amateurs over the last few years and at one point in the early 80s it actually looked like it was going to close.

    One thing they should be able to do with is money is investigate the interesting readings they've been getting from proxima centuri, where several M class planets have been discovered. The chances of it being life are small but the fact is that the 55Gev readings they've been getting are a complete mystery so even if the're just coming from a tachyon field it should produce some interesting new data

    --
    All that glitters has a high refractive index.
    1. Re:this is great news by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Its about time that SETI got some serious funding, its mainly been kept going by enthusiastic amateurs over the last few years and at one point in the early 80s it actually looked like it was going to close

      Hey, I'm all for the SETI thing (did over 7500 units on SETI@home myself), but I don't think using our tax dollars searching for aliens in a time when we've got the largest national debt in history makes alot of sense. Yeah, it might be cool to discover life elsewhere, but ya need to prioritize. One last point...the money that NASA spends (like most other govt. agencies) is hughly inefficient compared to that of private industry.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:this is great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I still call this government hipocracy. They dropped funding and turned their backs when nothing was seen coming from the project. And not that a few hundred scientists have started finding interesting stuff (55Gev) in their spair time, the government is ready to walk in and calm the victory themselves. So typical.

      Anyway, about the 55Gev, it's really interesting, I've heard stories that whatever it is, the civilization that made those stuff (if one existed) would have now vanished. Incredbile thinking we are looking at intelligent lives that are no longer around, scary at the same time makes you feel kinda lonely and depressed.

    3. Re:this is great news by puusism · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know perfectly well that M class planets only exist in Star Trek. The same applies also to tachyon fields. :-) And no earth-like planets have ever been discovered around Proxima Centauri...

      I think you should not be modded down as troll, because this is a good indicator about the data quality found on Interesting 5 Slashdot posts.

      --
      - Ismo
    4. Re:this is great news by mdvolm · · Score: 1

      That's true, government agencies are incredibly inefficient. Hence our huge national debt!

      However, re-directing the funding that NASA is giving to SETI to reduce the national debt would be akin to throwing a suitcase off the Titanic.

    5. Re:this is great news by FroMan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Interesting? It sounds like someone has been spending too much time watching star trek to me.

      Had he thrown in any comments about phasers, holodecks, or klingons it might have been a funny comment.

      As far as planets discovered outside our solar system, I thought we have only found gas giants or round'a'bout size. I'd hardly call those livable for humans.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    6. Re:this is great news by ceejayoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it might be cool to discover life elsewhere, but ya need to prioritize.

      Personally, I feel you're the one who needs to prioritize - putting the national debt ahead of finding intelligent life?

    7. Re:this is great news by FroMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt that the government is thinking, "Oh lets ride on SETI's coattails." More likely the government someone figured, hey, they actually seem to be getting somewhere, we can toss them a few coin and see what they come up with.

      I know, its much to easy to think bad things of the government, but try to think objectively.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    8. Re:this is great news by radixvir · · Score: 1

      anyone got a link to this 55gev stuff?

    9. Re:this is great news by LilMikey · · Score: 1

      Riiiiight... next you'll be saying Dilythimum Crystals are fake too. You obviously have NO idea.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    10. Re:this is great news by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      How do you know the efficiency of private industry funds; considering their books are closed and all claims come from their marketing departments!?

      Why should government be less efficient that private sector? We are all the same Americans public or private.

    11. Re:this is great news by JahToasted · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One last point...the money that NASA spends (like most other govt. agencies) is hughly inefficient compared to that of private industry.

      Do you have any proof of this? People keep saying it over and over again, but I've never seen anyone actually show some numbers to prove. This indicates to me that its a myth. In fact I would guess the opposite is true.

      Governmemnt can borrow money cheaper than a private company can. Private companies pay a lot out to their CEO's and other executives. Coporations have as many stupid people in management as the public sector.

      NASA *is* inefficient, but is it because of government bureacracy or is it because of corporations ripping them off? It seems like NASA is required to do business with just about every aerospace company in every state so that congress will give them money, because the aerospace bribe (contribute, bribe, same thing, right?) congress to do so. Is this NASA's fault, congress's fault, or the aerospace industries' fault?

      And look at all the research that NASA gives away that benefits everyone. Heart monitoring equipment for example. If NASA was a private company that would be patented meaning that we'd pay for the research and then the hospitals (which we pay for) would have to pay the licensing fees to use the technology. How efficient is that?

      Really technology is a public good. And the production of public goods is the reason we have government. The private sector can produce public goods with government help, but this causes a lot of needless inefficiency. Oh well, all in the name of capitalism I guess.

    12. Re:this is great news by Jungle+guy · · Score: 1

      I am not defending the public funding of SETI, but cutting these expenses wouldn't help the US national debt. You would have better results looking at the taxes cut by W Bush and military spending in the war in Iraq (despite what he might say, this war has not ended and soldiers from both sides continue to die).

    13. Re:this is great news by Aadain2001 · · Score: 1

      As someone mentioned above, NASA may be short on funds to explore space, but they probably have a glut of funds for donating to organizations such as SETI. The point I'm making is that NASA and another government agencies don't just get a big check from Congress once a month to do with as they please. They are given several checks, each designated for specific area/task, and none of those funds may be moved to any other department/project. Add on top of that the typical beuracratic mindset that Congress has (if you don't spend it all, you must need that much next time), and NASA pretty much has to spend this money on SETI, else they might have even more budget cuts. It's nice to think that all the government agencies get X amount of money each month, and what they don't spend they can give back to help with other areas that are overbudget, but that's not they way our government works. It's not even the way stat governments works, nor a lot of large corporations. It's all about the people in charge being lazy. They don't want to actually think and plan and work. They just want to add some columns in Excel and say "You get $X this time and $Y next time (with $X > $Y)".

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    14. Re:this is great news by windi · · Score: 1

      One thing they should be able to do with is money is investigate the interesting readings they've been getting from proxima centuri, where several M class planets have been discovered.

      Proxima Centauri is a small red-dwarf that orbits the Alpha Centauri double-star system. Proxima Centauri will very probably not have any Earh-like planets, and the chance of Alpha Centauri having any isn't big either due to the nature of double-star systems.

      Star Trek, while a fun show to watch, does not equal truue science.

    15. Re:this is great news by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      Yes, the technology they give away benefits society, but his quote was that the money NASA spends is hughly inefficient compared to the private sector. This is true. I did contract work at JSC and I can attest to 50$ lunches and paying people $138 an hour to sit around in the break room and talk ALL DAY.

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    16. Re:this is great news by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      I love the comments attached to this. That subtle sense of British humor bites 'em in the ass every time.

      Kudos, man. +1 Funny troll.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    17. Re:this is great news by alienw · · Score: 1

      But, are you sure that doesn't happen at corporations? I sure as hell think it does. Ever hear of Dennis Kozlowski (from Tyco) and his $15,000 shower curtains purchased on company money?

    18. Re:this is great news by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      At the height of the Internet, when Energy trading was booming, or when AOL was busting at the seams (naked stripper parties), those things happen, but for the backbone of the US economy, which is the small to medium size business (99% of all employers Small Business by the Numbers), that kind of waste doesn't happen.

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    19. Re:this is great news by epiphani · · Score: 1

      Regarding this whole Proxima Centauri issue...

      Proxima Centauri (Or Alpha Centauri C) is a main sequence red dwarf star, quite dim. Most red dwarf stars go through phases where they exponentially increase their output - which may be where you got this 55Gev thing from. Though, I could be wrong.

      As for planets - there is the possibility of a gas giant about the 80% the size of jupiter orbiting Proxima Centauri, but thats all we know. This is the closest star, at a mere 4.22 light years away. Alpha Centauri A and B are 4.36 light years, and are much more visible. I highly doubt we'll find anything excessively interesting, especially SETI wise, from something so close to us, and so previously studied.

      Source: http://www.solstation.com/stars/alp-cent3.htm

      --
      .
    20. Re:this is great news by SETIGuy · · Score: 1
      Yes, the technology they give away benefits society, but his quote was that the money NASA spends is hughly inefficient compared to the private sector. This is true. I did contract work at JSC and I can attest to 50$ lunches and paying people $138 an hour to sit around in the break room and talk ALL DAY.

      I have some experience with this, too. The people eating the $50 lunches and getting paid $138 an hour to sit around and do nothing are called "contractors." In their spare time they complain about how private sector contractors are more efficient than the government workers.

    21. Re:this is great news by clambake · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm all for the SETI thing (did over 7500 units on SETI@home myself), but I don't think using our tax dollars searching for aliens in a time when we've got the largest national debt in history makes alot of sense. Yeah, it might be cool to discover life elsewhere, but ya need to prioritize.

      Yeah, tax breaks for the oil companies come first, then congressional trips to the Bahamas, THEN aliens.

    22. Re:this is great news by bweinman · · Score: 1

      "M class planets"!?? "tachyon fields"!?? "large-breasted Borgs in stiletto heals"!??

      Tell ya what, you head on over there, at warp factor 9, and send us a message over sub-space when you get there. Let us know what you find.

      Don't forget to wrap your head in foil to prevent them from stealing your essence.

      (grumblegrumble it's wackos like this give SETI a bad name)

      --Bill

    23. Re:this is great news by alienw · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't have a small to medium-size NASA replacement, can you? Besides, the Tyco, Enron, and other corporate scandals happened WAY after the Internet boom.

  6. Re:Waste of money by sleeper0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure you say that now, but you'll be crying when china has all of the lucrative exclusive extra terrestrial trade deals worked out and we're still trying to sell cars to canada.

  7. Re:Waste of money by NicenessHimself · · Score: 5, Interesting
    SETI is important because it:
    • seeks to answer an important question: are we alone? Statistically, probably not. But finding that 'first contact' will have a world-altering impact upon technology and religion etc
    • gets punters involved in science
    • utilises information already gathered and processed for other astronomical research. It really is about making maximum use of the data gathered by the radio telescopes of the world
  8. Chance or Design? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is important to note here that the U.S. government through its agency NASA has officially thrown support to the adherents of evolution.

    If there is no evolution, then there is no chance that life would exist anywhere else in the universe because it would have had to have been Created only here. The New Testament of the Bible (in which most Creationists readily and eagerly believe) repeatedly claims that there is only one Son of God and that only through Him is salvation possible. This would mean that if by some chance that there were lifeforms elsewhere in the galaxy that they would have to be perfect beings or destined for Hell. Since a loving God wouldn't create beings guaranteed to spend eternity in the flames of Hades, it stands to reason that God would have only created Life here on Earth (where, again, He sent His Son).

    But with NASA supporting the search for ET life, the government has implicitly thumbed its nose at the Creationists.

    It's about time, if you ask me.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Chance or Design? by Kierthos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or, of course, the Bible could be a collection of parables rather then a dogmatic belief structure that does not allow outside thought, interpretation, and possibilities. The idea that the Bible, which has undergone more revisions then Enron's accounting books, is still 100% accurate from the words of the original authors of the scripture is hardly possible. Bias, new passages and "modern" thought creep in (try the King James version for some of the best of that). Therefore, it should not be taken as absolute fact, but as a structure to base belief on, not the absolute belief itself.

      It's got some good ideas, but just because something doesn't appear in the Bible does not mean it's heretical. (For one thing, I daresay neither computers nor Slashdot make an appearance, and yet here you are...)

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Chance or Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Another geek who doesn't understand the Bible. I'm not a believer myself, but at least I understand what the New Testament wants to say.

    3. Re:Chance or Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are saying that you shouldn't take the Bible in its entirety as Truth, then are you also saying that Christianity (the belief that Jesus died on the cross to pay for the sins of Man) is a sham and that Christians the world over are duped?

      If you are not saying this, and consequently saying that Christianity based on that fundamental tenet is correct, then how can you reconcile that with the belief that the Bible is just full of "good ideas"? Wouldn't it, in fact, be full of trickery and deceit on the part of the authors to lure you in with seemingly good ideas (love your neighbor) and then turn around and teach you things that were wholly untrue (Jesus was the Messiah)?

    4. Re:Chance or Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that what the New Testament actually says, or what you want it to say?

      The words are all right there in black and white (maybe red too if you've got versions that highlight Jesus's quoted text).

      Tell us, what do you think the New Testament "wants to say".

    5. Re:Chance or Design? by Potor · · Score: 1
      I would have thought that a geek would understand the concept of false dilemma:
      This would mean that if by some chance that there were lifeforms elsewhere in the galaxy that they would have to be perfect beings or destined for Hell.
      Not every decision is an 'or.' cheers, potor
    6. Re:Chance or Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that if you're able to do some critical reading and look past the junk that's from the disciples instead of from Jesus (so yes, my view is the more objective one if you only give a fuck about Jesus... which you should), you'll find out that it does not contain the conservative, earth-centric view on life that many (geek) people today think it has. You might find a lot of scary evil things in the Old Testament, but the truth is Jesus didn't care about it. He was a jew in nothing but name (think about it. He slept in the houses of sinners, worked on the sabbat, etc. You have read the Bible and all that... haven't you?). As for how the jewish stuff got into the New Testament, catholicism, and, there's no denying it, into protestantism, that's easy: good ole' Saint Pete and the others were all still wrapped up in their old dogma's. Enough stuff about that, too. Remember when Jesus enters Jerusalem and the people go all "Hozana" on him? Peter yells something like "Hail the son of David!". Now where did Jesus say he was that? Nowhere. He wasn't the jewish Messiah. Which is good, because (now we're getting on topic) it ment he cared about all people: jews, heathens, and why not aliens? He told his disciples to go forth and convert "the people". Did you ever hear Jesus say it was God who created the earth in seven days etc.? Nope. He actually had a very universal view on God. "The kingdom of god is within you" (not sure if that's the exact quote). Not what the Old Testament god says, oh no.

      In short: Jesus' message was never that of the God of the Old Testament (although he did agree with some of the better values presented therein: the 10 commendments). The original parent's post revealed a lack of comprehension of the Bible, which allot of people have.

      Happy now?

    7. Re:Chance or Design? by DarenN · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There's soooo many holes in that that I wasn't sure where to start. Incidentally IANAC (I am not a creationist)

      If there is no evolution, then there is no chance that life would exist anywhere else in the universe because it would have had to have been Created only here

      That makes no sense. The basis of most religions is that their god is omnipotent and ominescent, so why can't they have created multiple intelligent lifeforms. For that matter, the power of the god can explain evolution, too (how could such a finely balanced lattice have occured without something guiding it's creation)

      The New Testament of the Bible (in which most Creationists readily and eagerly believe) repeatedly claims that there is only one Son of God and that only through Him is salvation possible.

      He was human incarnate, not human. Why couldn't he have been "Ugly bug-eyed monster from Proxima Centauri incarnate" or "Betazed incarnate"?

      You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.


      And to bring this back on topic, it's good to see the funding, but I wonder is it because SETI is starting to get data that interests NASA for some reason (like the readings from Proxima Centauri mentioned in another post).

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    8. Re:Chance or Design? by Kinniken · · Score: 1

      But with NASA supporting the search for ET life, the government has implicitly thumbed its nose at the Creationists.

      Not the US government - NASA, which as a scientific organization is much more likely to be "pro-evolutionist" than "pro-creationist". I doubt this was conceived by high-level officials from the Bush administration as a show of support for the ToE...

      --
      What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
    9. Re:Chance or Design? by panurge · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Try reading the Bible. In fact, try learning some Hebrew. You'll get a shock, in fact a whole series of shocks. From the first verse of Bereshit (Genesis) in fact, where the word used for "God" (Elohim) is a plural form. What the Creationists say is usually what one verse taken out of context of the Bible says.

      However, many theological writers have pointed out that the belief in multiple inhabited worlds is history-neutral as well as evolution-neutral. Terry Pratchett often makes this point in humorous ways: in one of his books parts of a continent are created 30000 years old two weeks ago, and in another he mentions the Creator installing perfectly faked fossils to fool future investigators.

      To avoid misunderstandings, I'm an agnostic who thinks that the difference between Creationists and the Taliban is largely about what the law allows and geographical location, but I am aware that, just as there can be no proof of the existence of a universal God, there can equally be no proof of the scientific view of the history of the universe.

      And if we find something with SETI and start sending them messages, better hope they have a reasonably liberal anti-spam policy.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    10. Re:Chance or Design? by Kinniken · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He was human incarnate, not human. Why couldn't he have been "Ugly bug-eyed monster from Proxima Centauri incarnate" or "Betazed incarnate"?

      You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.


      I have no doubt that at least some churches would adapt, but it would be far more difficult than what you say. For a start, any alien life would be most likely very different from our own ; not only physically, but in terms of psychology, values, organization, beliefs... simply "transposing" the Bible to their civilization and thus making them "human equivalents" would most likely be totally impossible.
      Even supposing that they look and behave enough like human for such a transposition to be possible (or more likely, that not enough is known about them to disprove it and that the churches chooses to believe it is the case), you are still left with some big, big problems. For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image". And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds.
      I suppose Religions, including Christian one, would adapt, but definite proof of the existence of Alien civilizations would require massive updating of the Churches' beliefs.

      --
      What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
    11. Re:Chance or Design? by Madcapjack · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I found this post on the net and i think that its a decent reply to the parent post. (citation at end)

      "February 05, 2003

      WHY CAN'T I OWN CANADIANS?

      Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident:

      Dear Dr. Laura:

      Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

      a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

      b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

      c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

      d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

      Why can't I own Canadians?

      e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sunday (the Sabbath).In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death.

      Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

      f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

      g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

      h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

      i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

      j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14). I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

      Your devoted disciple and adoring fan."

      You're taking the Bible as if it is one entity that either all of it is true or all of it is false. But the bible is a historical accumulation of different texts with different authors and different histories.

      The text was found at:

      http://www.liola.com/archives/000622.php

    12. Re:Chance or Design? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yahweh (the hebrew word for God) cannot be prounounced in Hebrew. Kind of dovetails with the "No graven images" concept in a peculiar sort of way.

      I always get a kick out of the Toaist notion that to understand the universe, ou have to stop using words to describe it.

      To me, I couldn't give a rats ass how the universe actually started. Nor do I particularly care how it's going to end. These events do not in any way affect what I am doing right here, and right now.

      Or I thing Loa Tsu said it best:

      Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
      When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
      When kindness is lost, there is justice.
      When justice is lost, there ritual.
      Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
      Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao.
      It is the beginning of folly.

      --Toa Te Ching - Chapter 38
      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    13. Re:Chance or Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "in one of his books parts of a continent are created 30000 years old two weeks ago, and in another he mentions the Creator installing perfectly faked fossils to fool future investigators."

      I believe it goes something like "dinosaur fossils were an elaborate joke that geologists simply haven't got yet". Anybody got the exact quote? I think it's from Good Omens (brilliant book btw).

    14. Re:Chance or Design? by richie2000 · · Score: 5, Funny
      definite proof of the existence of Alien civilizations would require massive updating of the Churches' beliefs.

      Not really. Just some kick-ass space crusades.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    15. Re:Chance or Design? by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      simply "transposing" the Bible to their civilization and thus making them "human equivalents" would most likely be totally impossible.

      I'm not sure you need to. After all, look around our own planet. It's not like there is one and only one religion found on our planet. Wouldn't other species be looked at like any other "alien" (non-christian) religion?

      For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image".

      That doesn't have to mean, "always and forever". It just as well mean, "at that point in time." As for created in God's image, well, that pretty much means any image that God takes, could then be created. Again, neither are violated.

      And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds.

      Not sure that's a valid argument either. The quote is, "...he died for our sins...". Perhaps our species or more sinful than others? Perhaps other symbolic deaths serve other cultures? In other words, I don't think it says, ...our sins and the wierdos on Alpha Centauri..." LOL. That sounds funny.

      Long story short, arguments like the above never make any sense to me. When I hear people say things like, "discovery of aliens will destroy our religions", I'm always left dumb-founded. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If people insist on buying into it and can find a way for their religion to encompass modern society, one has to ask, how relevant is it to start with?

      Think of it this way, pork products are supposed to be verboten and we are only supposed to drink milk from goats. Just the same, both Tenents made sense in their day, however, the associated beliefs, for many, adopted because they realized they just don't make sense anymore.

      Which, of course, tip-toes into the whole "free choice" and "free-will" idioms. So on and so forth. Long story short, those that think discovery of aliens is going to destroy religions have a very narrow and unflexible point of view. Or, another way of looking at it, any religion which can't adopt deserves to be destroyed as they are no longer relevent.

    16. Re:Chance or Design? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.

      In fact, Catholic scholars as far back as the 13th Century proved to their satisfaction that life being discovered elsewhere would prove no problem for their doctrine. The only part of the debate left open was, would an alien civilization require an alien "instantiation" of Jesus, or could they use ours?

    17. Re:Chance or Design? by Isldeur · · Score: 1


      You know, I don't believe in Creation or really disbelieve in it. The way I see it is this. If some all-powerful diety created the heavens, would he have told us all the nitty gritty physics and math or whatever it is even today let alone ages ago? No, of course not. We would have gotten some children's tale. The Creation thing, if it has a place, is in allergory.

    18. Re:Chance or Design? by solarlux · · Score: 1

      I agree that traditional religions seem to have an amazing ability to adapt as new (and sometimes contradictory) information is found. What used to be regarded as a literal statement of fact becomes regarded as metaphors or symbols. You'll never read day-age and local-flood theories that pre-date modern geology.

      Regarding more conservative forms of Christianity, I think a blow would be dealt. The Bible is clearly Earth-centric in how it describes both the beginning and ending of cosmic history ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"). In the "Day of the Lord", it's the earth is destroyed with fire and the heavens being "rolled up like a scroll". With a conservative Christian worldview, you would not expect alien intelligence to exist (just peruse some of their websites), although with an evolutionary humanist perspective, you would. In my perspective, the religions which "can't adopt" should be destroyed for being no longer relevant, and the ones which do "change" to suit the new evidence should be held suspect. Are they really leading the way of knowledge, or just hanging on for the ride by its coattails?

    19. Re:Chance or Design? by pulse2600 · · Score: 1

      For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image". And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds. I suppose Religions, including Christian one, would adapt, but definite proof of the existence of Alien civilizations would require massive updating of the Churches' beliefs.

      I strongly disagree with this, and on one very simple idea. Almost everyone who is looking for life on other planets is assuming they will find some great civilization that is much more advanced than us in every aspect - biology, science, technology, intelligence, whatever. I am Christian, and if the Bible says that man is made in God's image, blah blah blah - then from my view it's safe to assume that whatever life we do find is not as advanced as we are - much to the disappointment of sci-fi authors and UFO hunters. And even if they are more advanced, then maybe the we are still created in God's image but that has nothing to do with being the most advanced civilization. So it still works.

    20. Re:Chance or Design? by Rocky · · Score: 1

      > Why couldn't he have been "Ugly bug-eyed monster from Proxima Centauri incarnate" or "Betazed incarnate"?

      Well, at least now there's an explanation as to why Jesus always knows how I'm feeling...

      --
      "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
    21. Re:Chance or Design? by psxndc · · Score: 1
      In short: Jesus' message was never that of the God of the Old Testament

      Which makes the majority of Christianity, which is based on the entire Bible, not just the New Testament, pretty hard to swallow. Granted there are probably some sects which just throw out the Old Testament, but the majority base their faith on the Bible as a whole. A book which is very contradictory when you compare the two testaments. What does Jesus's message say about the God of the Old Testament? That He was wrong? Is God now non-omniscient and prone to "I changed my mind on that one"? Can open, worms everywhere.

      psxndc

      --

      The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    22. Re:Chance or Design? by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      From the first verse of Bereshit (Genesis) in fact, where the word used for "God" (Elohim) is a plural form. What the Creationists say is usually what one verse taken out of context of the Bible says.

      Many theological writers have also pointed out that the christian belief in the Trinity is simply evidenced as early as Genesis through the use of the plural form. Your claim is simply mangling theology as badly as many creationists mangle science.

      To avoid misunderstandings, I'm an agnostic who thinks that the difference between Creationists and the Taliban is largely about what the law allows and geographical location

      This sort of comparison makes me sick. Another difference between Creationist's and the Taliban is respect for human life. This is as low as calling evolutionists nazis because evolution promotes eugenics. Both this statement and your own have no point beyond stirring up hate against a group. You might not have a problem with doing that towards creationists, but I for one am sickened by it. Shame on those who moderated this up so high.

    23. Re:Chance or Design? by caudron · · Score: 1

      Don't take this as total disagreement with what you've said. In fact, I whole-heartedly agree with your point, being that a woodenly literal interpretation of the bible is doomed to bring you toward ignorance not toward enlightenment....however, I have one small clarification.

      The books of the bible have been edited at times, but what we have now allows us to have a remarkably accurate idea of what was originally written. When 5 people edit a passage and 50 don't, and we find all 6 versions, we can see use modern redaction criticism and archeological evidence (which is older, from what sect, etc...) to figure out what is more accurate. We know, for instance, that the end of the gospel of Mark is an add-on. Most modern bibles label it as such now, too (cf, RSV, NRSV, and NKJV for examples of this). The bible, contrary to popular opinion isn't full of edits and deletions. Scholars have a great ability to weed through those things and get to the truth of things. Any modern interpretation from a scholarly source (ie, not Pat Robertson's "The Book") will give the reader an excellent idea of what was originally written as long as the reader know what biases the interpreters brought to the table (which is why I prefer the RSV, broad agreeent across religious lines, beautiful language, excellents scholarship in the process).

      Disclaimer: I am a Christian, I tend to think there are aliens (but not in a " conspiracy fruitcake" way), I beleive in Divine creation, but not via a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I have a degree in Religious Studies.

      -Tom

      --
      -Tom
    24. Re:Chance or Design? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      One thing I also wonder about is whether some terrestrial religions would want to send missionaries. It's possible some alien cultures would look on our missionaries as heretics and perhaps start a nice little religious war :-)

      Ok, not likely, but we won't know until then...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    25. Re:Chance or Design? by LilMikey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm always disappointed when people quote the Bible trying to disprove science. There are 2 things to remember here...

      1. The Bible is a blueprint. Very few theological scholars believe the Bible should be taken as an account of history. What we were given wasn't a reference manual, it was a lesson book. In my view (as off-base as it may be) reading the Bible to get an account of what happend a couple thousand years ago is missing the point and somewhat cheapening the meaning of the book.

      2. God was speaking to scientifically primitive people. If he mentioned aliens on other planets how would they take it? How would they write it? They didn't even have the words in their vocabulary. God just described the book, it was up to people with no knowledge of space, biology, evolution, etc. to write it. God chose his words carefully like any good parent. He didn't tell us everything (or there would be no science) but he told us what we needed to hear.

      Any anyone who reads this and exclaims "He's calling God a liar!" is REALLY missing the point.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    26. Re:Chance or Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, that's what I find comical about christians. They pedal a book that 1) should never be taken for literal truth on ANYTHING, either testament, 2) most believe completely without realizing the contradictory nature of the two halves, and 3) is mostly a collection of fable stories with some inklings of truth (at least the old testament, the new testament is practically several biographies that are biased anyways by the disciples/cult members - yes, by the definition of cult, christianity was originally a cult ;-) )

      Anyways, enough with the religious debate. This topic has nothing... NOTHING... to do with religion as far as I'm concerned.

    27. Re:Chance or Design? by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1
      "created to God's image"

      IANAT

      Since when does image have anything to do with what you look like. Could not our intellegence and free will -our potential have been created in His image?

      An image is a representation of something, and an image is not always true, but an image is not the original.

    28. Re:Chance or Design? by gobbo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      God was speaking to scientifically primitive people. If he mentioned aliens on other planets how would they take it? How would they write it? They didn't even have the words in their vocabulary.

      Well, (s)He might have described it through the eyes of a prophet, like this: "I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north--an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures."

      Von Daaniken I'm not, but that's pretty trippy testimony for something that's canon.

    29. Re:Chance or Design? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1
      Frank Herbert's Dune is a great look at how religion deals with expansion. TO badly paraphrase:

      Of course, the single thing that had the greatest impact on human religion should be put in large, bold letters:SPACE TRAVEL

      Read the Dune series (you can stop at the tripe his son wrote). It's impressive.

    30. Re:Chance or Design? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 1

      Bearshit?

    31. Re:Chance or Design? by superyooser · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the Bible could be a collection of parables

      But it's clearly not. Any casual reader (or Biblical scholar) can see this. The Bible is a collection of 66 books written over a 1500 year span by more than 40 authors on three continents (Asia, Africa, Europe) in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). As a result of the diversity in which the books were composed, the Bible includes various kinds of literature: poetry, historical narrative, song, romance, didactic treatise, personal correspondence, memoirs, satire, biography, autobiography, law, prophecy, parable, and allegory. Parables are just one kind.

      The idea that the Bible, which has undergone more revisions then Enron's accounting books, is still 100% accurate from the words of the original authors of the scripture is hardly possible.

      There is more manuscript evidence to vouch for the integrity of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, than any other ancient writing. We're talking tens of thousands of documents. And there are no significant differences between the texts.

      You imply that the accuracy of the Biblical text in our languages is becoming less genuine over time, but reality shows the exact opposite. The reason? Biblical archaeology. We have discovered more things about Biblical events and cultures in the last few decades than in the previous several hundreds of years.

      Translation is a complicated thing. First of all, you must realize that there are major differences between modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew. Secondly, it is not sufficient to know Biblical Hebrew and English in order to translate Biblical manuscripts into English. Scholars who translate these things have a vast knowledge of languages, such as Persian, Arabic, Ugaritic, Aramaic, etc., some of which are extinct.

      The New Testament is particularly tricky, because although it is in Greek, it frequently uses Hebrew idioms. The KJV is a literal translation, which guarantees that the resulting English text is confusing and wrong. Maybe "wrong" is too strong a word (with regard to its literalness; it is wrong because of other matters of ignorance); the problem is that we, the readers, don't have the knowledge and experience of first century Jews to interpret it correctly. You see, having an understanding of Hebrew thought patterns and idioms is a prerequisite for understanding NT Greek. This entails understanding first century Hebrew culture under the influence of the reigning Roman Empire as well as the Aramaic language, which was predominant among the Jews at that time.

      The field of Biblical archaeology is exploding, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, which revealed the oldest known manuscripts of many Old Testament passages in the world. We are uncovering new facts all the time that aid in translating and interpreting the Bible. This has led to an explosion of new Bible versions in the last few decades.

      Our understanding and translation of Biblical text is not becoming less accurate; it is becoming more accurate!

    32. Re:Chance or Design? by TroyFoley · · Score: 1

      Pope Pius XII stated so on 22 November 1951, early in the development of the theory (1). Either way, as long as the conversation keeps to the near side of the big bang, the theory holds nothing for science and religion to disagree about (2).

      The same kind of truce has helped, to a lesser degree, the Darwinian paradigm for evolution and the origin of life on Earth. The theory says life originates out of nonliving chemicals and evolves to higher levels of organization simply by following mechanistic laws. Western religions say yes, and every mechanism has a creator. But here the truce has been uneasy. On October 22, 1996, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II (right) acknowledged the significance of the mainstream theory of evolution.

      -From http://www.panspermia.org/mechansm.htm

      Damn it feels good to be Irish Catholic.

      --
      After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
    33. Re:Chance or Design? by Madcapjack · · Score: 1
      Jesus fulfilled the law, Christians are no longer subject to it. Your post is therefore effectively flamebait, troll, or simple anti-semitism. Which is it? Your answer assumes too much. I know for a fact that the history of early Christianity debated hotly the issue of whether or not Christian's must obey Jewish law. James the Just, brother of Jesus (however you want to construe the kin-term brother) argued that Christians are bound to the law, while Paul argued the opposite. The Christian tradition has followed Paul for the most part. But I think that there are still quite a few Christians who do not believe that Christians are no longer subject to the law on theological grounds. Further, I do not believe that most Christians truly believe that Christians are no longer subject to Mosaic law, else why would the continue quoting the Ten Commandments, persist in observing the Sabbath, or use Old Testament biblical texts to justify their bigotry or their moral outrage against gays, lesbians, or 'deviants' of various kinds?

      Christian morality is better than the kind of morality presented in the Old Testament. The God of the New Testament is Love, the God of the Old Testament is Vengeance. Without lids over our eyes and hearts, we cannot truthfully regard the kinds of things that happen in the Old Testament as morally justified. Generally, Jews, who do believe that they are bound to the law still, do not (nor do they think that it is reasonable to do so) follow all of the prescriptions or rules given in 'every jot' of Mosaic law. I do not see how my statement can be correctly construed as Anti-Semitic as I was being critical of a)Christians who believe that the Bible represents the eternal and perfect truth of God where every part of the Bible must be equally true and b)the kind of religion, not specific to Judaic religion, that is used to justify killing, racism, ethnocentricism, sexism, and myopia-used because the texts themselves support such viewpoints. This is not limited to Judaism. If it were, it could only be taken as a criticism of the beliefs of Jews from the distant past.

      I do not reject the Bible as a source of religious truths, but I do reject an uncritical reading of it. Blind faith leads to a blind conscience-if you believe blindly that the genocide of the Canaanites was justified because 'god's people' needed a place to live as determined by that God, then you are putting shutters over what your conscience, that true gift of God which tells us what is right or wrong, and becoming a Pharisee, who were determined that every point in the law be observed but missed the heart of the Law, which is love, mercy, and charity. Considering the numerous coutnerfactual and contradictory statements in the Bible, it seems important, indeed necessary, to me that we judge with our hearts and our heads right and wrong. Who wants to worship a god when they feel, or at least have the suspicion that they feel, that they have a higher moral standard than their God? As I feel that I cannot have a higher moral standard than my God, then I must either conclude that I am wrong or that the texts that i'm reading are wrong, and given the vagueness, inconsistencies, and, more generally, shockingness of some of the acts of the god of the old testament, i'm inclined to favor that it is the text of the old testament that does not give an accurate portrayal of the God of Love I would worship.

      My original post was not, contrary to the opinions of so many moderators, off-topic, as it directly responded to the parent post, which was making the claim that a) the Bible must be taken as a whole and b)that therefore it must be wholly true, or wholly false. I disputed this claim with a post which shows that, at least in one way, a simple reading of 'whole truth' cannot be maintained. My position may or may not have been correct, but it certainly was not off topic. If it was, all of the other posts on religion in this thread not mentioning alien or SETI were offtopic. Moderators ought to take more time an

    34. Re:Chance or Design? by Madcapjack · · Score: 1
      Jesus fulfilled the law, Christians are no longer subject to it. Your post is therefore effectively flamebait, troll, or simple anti-semitism. Which is it?

      Furthermore the questions in the text are legitimate for Jews those jews who do believe that the law still obtains.

      If any people here are practicing Jews, or know a lot about it, could you tell me what the general perspective is on this issue? thx

    35. Re:Chance or Design? by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      ... that there is only one Son of God and that only through Him is salvation possible. This would mean that if by some chance that there were lifeforms elsewhere in the galaxy that they would have to be perfect beings or destined for Hell.

      Naa, it just means that Earth got the male; the rest were female, or other.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  9. What's so great about SETI?? by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometime back, we read NASA withdrew funding for DARPA, IIRC. What's so compelling for NASA to pump more funds into SETI? Some kind of social engineering at work here, methinks.

    It's ironic, but NASA seems to be getting more attention after a spectacular failure (Colombia disaster)

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:What's so great about SETI?? by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's ironic, but NASA seems to be getting more attention after a spectacular failure (Colombia disaster)

      When a government program fails, instead of being replaced with a more competant competitor, they are normally rewarded with more funding. This is a natural consequence of a business model based on force (rather than voluntary association as in the market). When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Look at drug prohibition for a classic example. After decades of prohibition, we have nothing to show for it but crime, violence, corruption, oppression, the highest prison rate of any nation, and last but not least, more drugs. What is government's solution? Reward the failed program with more funding.

    2. Re:What's so great about SETI?? by stwrtpj · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sometime back, we read NASA withdrew funding for DARPA, IIRC. What's so compelling for NASA to pump more funds into SETI? Some kind of social engineering at work here, methinks.

      Not necessarily. One of the reasons that SETI is now getting the spotlight is because it has finally stated to lose its "giggle factor". The reason for this is the great advances that astronomy has made in detecting planets around other stars. This alone is proof that it is at least possible for other stars to have planets, so it greatly increases the chances of finding Earthlike planets once the telescope technology is up to snuff. I believe NASA has a new orbital telescope in the works called the Planetfinder or somesuch that may be able to locate planets as small as Earth.

      If NASA pulls this off and does find Earthlike planets, you can expect SETI funding to skyrocket, as the idea of intelligent civilizations now starts to fall within the realm of plausibility in the more skeptical community.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
  10. Finally.... by VladTheBad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I never understood why it was so hard to give funding to a program that could make the most important discovery yet.... (except for oil on mars... that'd be the only thing that'd get us off this rock faster...)

    At least they got the 24 hours of time to point Arecibo where they wanted before... now maybe they'll get more time, more radio telescope data to send out as workunits.

    The whole program seemed to be a great use of national money to me when I first learned about SETI, and its still a good place to invest money I think.

    Of course, I could be wrong....

    1. Re:Finally.... by heymjo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bush: What?? There is oil on Mars? Immediately nuke all space agencies other than NASA ! Reason? We don't need a reason... just use the terrorist prevention excuse or something ...

    2. Re:Finally.... by oojah · · Score: 1

      Oil on Mars would be a fantastic discovery as it implies life on Mars. Some sort of confirmation for scientists and a good excuse to send more probes there.

      Roger

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
    3. Re:Finally.... by Blitzshlag · · Score: 1

      I think you are wrong, it's really not an "investment" of money at all, as there is no chance of return on investment. While I agree that it would be great to make the discovery, it really wouldnt affect the lives of people on earth much.

      So if we detect a radio signal, it will be like the fossilized bacteria that we may or may not have found on Mars: people read it on the front page, say "oh, cool", then go back about their business. In all likelyhood by the time anything interesting would happen with an alien civilization living or dead, we will all be dead and gone ... and therin lies the funding problems. Nobody in power wants to work toward the greater good, they just want to stay in power.

  11. Just goes to show by maroberts · · Score: 5, Funny

    That putting that trojan in the screensaver that lobbies congressmen was a good idea.....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  12. Search for ET... by Dammerung · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's now nice to know all those 60-Some data sets I've gone through at about 30 hours each weren't in vain.

  13. SETI Announcement by pen · · Score: 4, Informative

    SETI Institute Selected as Astrobiology Lead Team
    The SETI Institute is proud to announce that it has been chosen as a lead team for NASA's Astrobiology Institute (NAI), the international research consortium coordinated through NAI's offices at NASA's Ames Research Center. NASA Ames is a long-standing partner of the SETI Institute in the search for life on other worlds, and we welcome this opportunity to deepen our scientific relationship.

  14. Re:Waste of money by packeteer · · Score: 1

    Well im fine taking that chance. In fact i take a chance to die that is much more likely to happen almost every day i get in a car. I think i will just count on the fact that i wont need to rely on trade with aliens while im still alive.

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  15. War of the Worlds by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Funny
    Preemptive War on Drugs. Taken care of.

    Preemptive War on Terrorism. Almost taken care of.

    Preemptive War on Little Green Men. That's our next Goal.

  16. What about seti@home? by Lispy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, with all the infrastructure and the servers running smoothly I personally believe this to be a very promising effort. So are they in or are they out of the funding?

    cu,
    Lispy

    1. Re:What about seti@home? by Book16 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The problem with seti@home is that the Arecibo telescope covers only a tiny fraction of the sky.

      I would like to see more funding put into projects such as those run by the non-profit organisation Seti League http://www.setileague.org/

      Seti League's Project Argus aims to have approximatley 5000 small aperture radio telescopes (generally modified satellite TV antennas) operating in a coordinated effort which allows the entire sky to be continuously monitored. The problem with telescopes such as Arecibo is that because of their large size, they can only see a fraction of the sky. And we don't known when or where we are going to receive 'the call', which is why amateur organisations are important. Just think how many discoveries have been made by amateur (optical) astronomers.

      --
      -- Book
    2. Re:What about seti@home? by I+Like+Swords!!! · · Score: 1

      Maybe now they will use it on the G5 Powermac, as someone wanted to know, to see how it runs. ;-)

      --
      .unsigged
  17. Re:Waste of money by SifuDave54 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why don't we just stop putting money into the arts too? according to you, we can't afford such frivolous things such as curiosity and expression and searching for meaning.

  18. Re:Waste of money by DarenN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As much as i would love to support the search for life in the galaxy sometimes its not a good idea. Although i do think that as humans we should try to search any money we put into a project like this is as good as gone and in finacial hard times like this we cant afford to throw around much.


    At the risk of starting a flamewar (I'm in an asbestos suit :P) attitudes like this piss me off enormously. All this stupid "we shouldn't put money into this, that and the other because of hard times/the poor/the children" is spurious.

    Fact: Agencies like NASA can stimulate the economy, by virtue of their sheer size. The same, but more so goes for the defense establishment

    Fact: many items which we take for granted today would not be a reality if it wasn't for the research money the governments provided

    I believe the single greatest hope for the eventual equality of all (which is somewhere in the american constitution, right?) is technology. You may or may not agree with this, you might say education, for instance, but more effiecient and cost effective ways of teaching and learning will come out of research.

    The "I don't want to pay so my descendants will benefit" attitude is an attitude that would have wiped out the human race, or any species, for that matter, if it was rife. If you are bemoaning your contribution, there is nothing stopping you disappearing into the hills and living as a hermit (except that wouldn't fit in your comfort zone, would it), while the rest of us go and make progress for the benefit of the species as a whole.

    This is also the reason that 20 new types of disposable wipe a year piss me off so badly.

    --
    Rational thought is the only true freedom
  19. All they need to do... by Quaoar · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is point their telescopes at Alabama. Tons of other-worldly creatures live there.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
  20. I knew it... by EvilMike · · Score: 2, Funny

    NASA have run out of stuff to exploit from the crashed flying saucers at Area 51 and now they're looking for which star system to send their 'honeypot' radio signals to :-D.

  21. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just think without goverment money art would not exisit

  22. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "seeks to answer an important question: are we alone? Statistically, probably not. But finding that 'first contact' will have a world-altering impact upon technology and religion etc "

    We are not alone. It's obvious. Arrogant to believe otherwise. Who cares about religion? How would discovering another race help our technology?

    "gets punters involved in science"

    How? Using their screensavers gets them involved? You could say the same about protein folding or whatever.

    "utilises information already gathered and processed for other astronomical research. It really is about making maximum use of the data gathered by the radio telescopes of the world "

    No, that would be true if they were doing just about anything but looking for aliens.

  23. First decoded alien signals from SETI: by deathcow · · Score: 4, Funny

    "PLZ resend disk 2 of TWO TOWERS"

  24. John 14:6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes unto the Father but by me.

    That's a pretty clear statement of divinity on the part of Jesus.

    Well, unless you are about to say that those words were put there by zealous scribes, in which case which parts of the Gospels should be believable? Only the parts you like and that fit in your worldview?

  25. We don't really read the articles, but... by slasho81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it time for Slashdot to partner with NYT just like Google did (link-wise)? After all, Slashdot is a rather large referrer to NYT articles.

  26. Alien pr0n by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    More like "We have over 80 YodaBytes of porn. Will trade our collection of 5 breasted sexy hairy slugs for your stuff"

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  27. Oscar Wilde Said... by vudufixit · · Score: 1

    "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are watching the stars."

    I think he was referring to sentiments such as this.

    Yes, a lot of government money is misallocated while basic needs are not met.

    But any civilization can't claim to really advance when it's "stuck in the gutter" worrying only about the basics when it lets the arts and sciences lie fallow.

  28. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We are fundinng a fictitious president 400k a year.

    We are funding a fictitious war over 100 million.

    We are paying congress people to tell us fictitiously that they are working for us.

    So I don't see why its news that we are paying to find ET on the fictitious idea that we ever will.

    1. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 million?!

      It's 3.9 Billion PER month for Iraq. And over 400 million per month for Afganistan.

  29. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why don't we just stop putting money into the arts too?

    Yeah, why don't we? If Art is about expression, you shouldn't care about the money. Go express yourselves. Just stop using my taxes to do it.

  30. Re:Waste of money by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "seeks to answer an important question: are we alone? Statistically, probably not."

    Statistically, almost certainly. Barring accidents or idiotic governments that totally devastate the human species, we will have colonised the entire galaxy in a million years or so, and be conducting engineering projects on a massive scale that would be visible from many light years away: the odds of the only two intelligent species in the galaxy evolving within a million years of each other are probably pretty slim, so if they existed they'd be here by now.

    I run seti@home just on the offchance that we're lucky and there is someone else around, but statistically, if there really are aliens out there, they should be as difficult to find as a million-strong herd of penguins running around Manhattan shouting 'Phear The Penguin Horde!'.

  31. Re:Pseudoscience on both sides - CS Lewis & SF by tz · · Score: 1

    CS Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy, and so far I believe his claim that it was the first that suggested that other worlds might be more advanced than earth. And he was Christian and HE noted that nothing in scripture or tradition would prevent or require life on other worlds. If there were, they might be unfallen (and would probably avoid us), fallen but redeemable (and either BC or AD regardless of their technology), or fallen and unredeemable.

    The latter category is where the demons go (having been angles). Note that Christians do believe that there are other beings in the universe - the angels and demons.

    My problem with SETI is how do we know when it has failed? If there are millions of indistinguishable stones to overturn looking for treasure, and you can only overturn a thousand, is it really science?

    Assuming we find an unfallen world (which we thankfully can't access) and find that they are far advanced in every science and art, but politically incorrect. I.e. they respect life, don't give into their lusts, have no swear words in their vocabulary... Or maybe we found one and it was classified.

    Why not also study parapsychology - maybe we can cross over with John Edwards and Ramtha and other channelers could prove that there are other beings in the universe, or in local parallel universes to earth. Isn't this what SETI is supposed to be looking for?

    We can study parapsychology "scientifically", but until something blatant happens we will never end. SETI is the same way. Funding based on mere beliefs in ETs or God(s) should either both or neither be funded.

    Of course if your point is that SETI is being funded because of political validity instead of scientific validity, your point destroys your position. The same way that although breast cancer kills far more than AIDS and isn't easily preventable, even the Feminists support the far greater funding on AIDS research.

    And while you bring up evolution, you shouldn't forget its twin brother - eugenics. For some reason research along the lines of Nazi scientists makes people squeamish - but if we are merely evolved animals, we can be bred like dogs or pigeons in order to make a better person. Realize that this was all very scientific at the time (and many of the writings of Charles Darwin you don't see reproduced today were quite racist). And the Christian opposition pointed out that we had souls.

    Finally, the reason I consider it that evolution is still pseudo-science is that there is nothing known within scientific law which can produce complex mechanisms (the original cell, the cambrian explosion, structures like a feather or the eye). Merely adding time doesn't help. And I don't believe that it is honest to just call each link a miracle - though research might end up if it eliminates everything else.

    Instead of looking for ETs, I think it would be far more profitable to look for this law, force, or whatever. Something like an eye should take billions of years, not millions. So what and where is this "engineering" force?

    Neither side admits it might exist and no one is looking for it.

  32. Re:Waste of money by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1
    why don't we just stop putting money into the arts too?

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, since this is a good idea. I, for one, and sick of my tax dollars to fund no-talent-hacks who throw elephant crap at canvas and call it art.

  33. Excellent use of NASA funds... by Jerry · · Score: 3, Informative
    because SETI gets more bang for the buck!


    Their hypothesis is also a good test of the theory that IL abounds in the universe. But so far, in the narrow range (+-10deg) that the Arecibo telescope scans, no synthetic transmissions have yet been received. Considering that during the last 5 years signals from anywhere as close as this solar system to as far away as the edge of our galaxy could have been recieved, but have not, leads to a few hypotheses.


    One, all existing IL have evolved past the use of ER as a means to communicate. Even here on Earth communications are rapidly moving to cable and the Internet, neither of which have any significant radiation leaking into space. Two, our civiliation is the only one to have reached the stage of using ER for communications. Three, there are no other civilization 'out there', ours is the only one.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    1. Re:Excellent use of NASA funds... by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      4.) They've seen our TV and are avoiding us like the plauge we are.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Excellent use of NASA funds... by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      Four - civilisations do not last long enough for the ER phase to be likely to be detected. Either they are self destroying ot civilisations that advertise their existence learn that it is a really, really stupid thing to do...

    3. Re:Excellent use of NASA funds... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yet another 4. Alien civilizations use ER in a way or in a frequency range on which we are not listening.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Excellent use of NASA funds... by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      "Considering that during the last 5 years signals from anywhere as close as this solar system to as far away as the edge of our galaxy could have been recieved, but have not, leads to a few hypotheses."

      Don't forget the speed of light. Signals from the other side of the galaxy, even if they were strong enough to detect with out current equipment, would take 100,000 years to get here.

      The past five years of Arecibo monitoring have only shown that, within a 10 degree band of sky, and within 5 light years, no one sent any signals. Futher out, move that five-year window further back in time. The odds of hearing anything interesting get progressively worse the further out you go. If radio use only happens within a narrow block of a civilization's lifetime, say, 300 years, and that civilization could have had that period at any time and at any distance from us, what are the chances that the signals didn't already pass us, or that the signals still won't get here for decades or centuries (or longer)?

      I'm not saying we shouldn't listen - listening is important, in case we get lucky. Just don't expect it to happen NOW, or for the source to be reasonably close nearby. Think of us more as historians for the moment than explorers; anything we get outside of a certain (very narrow - 200 light years?) radius means the sender civilization may very well be dead by the time we phsyically go there (for the 200ly example, that'd be a 2000 year trip with current tech, or a 200 year trip with magic). If we're lucky, the sender species will still be alive when we arrive. If the sender is thousands of light years away, then if we don't meet them halfway, they're probably already dead and gone.

  34. downside... by LMCBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bummer. I will no longer be able to righteously correct slashdotters who ignorantly complain that SETI is "wasting" their tax dollars. :)

    I was always kind of proud of SETI for making it on private donations alone; it seemed like losing federal funds was the best thing that ever happened to them. Anyway, this grant is just for the Astrobiology Institute partnership; they still have their own funds for their normal operations.

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  35. Christ . . . by Idou · · Score: 1

    "it on lake Travis and we go to hippy hollow with it."

    What does it mean if I actually KNOW these places . . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Christ . . . by mandolin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It means you probably live in the same town I do. Maybe we're even related..

  36. Re:Waste of money by ralphus · · Score: 1

    There's a hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in outer space. - Arthur C. Clarke

    --
    Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
  37. Farscape by solarlux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Watch the Farscape episode "I, E.T." for a stimulating glimpse of what it might be like for us to discover alien-life. This script was well-written and well-acted. Note: it's a human making contact with an alien Jodie Foster-like astronomer.

  38. I'm not claiming we shouldn't fund NASA, but... by stomv · · Score: 1

    This argument, posted above, is bunk:

    Fact: Agencies like NASA can stimulate the economy, by virtue of their sheer size. The same, but more so goes for the defense establishment

    So, couldn't we just take all of NASA's funding, and create, I don't know, the National Hungry People Eat Association (NHPEA) and just have this giant beaurocracy that exists to feed hungry people -- perhaps not terribly efficiently or fairly -- merely because by virtue of its sheer size, it could be stimulating the economy? I mean, it'd "stimulate the economy" and occasionally nurish people too!

    Personally, I'd like to see NASA get more money and the Pentagon less... and I work for a military laboratory. I think you'll find the slashdot is all in favor of military research (if it will eventually be shared). After all, the Internet and GPS are pretty cool technologies. I don't know how many slashdoters, however, are in favor of spending so much money building and maintaining weapons. Do we really need as many AK47s/landmines/missiles as we keep building?

    Either way, it doesn't make sense to fund an organization "for the economy" -- you could just create a second organization in leu of the first, which could accomplish some positive things for the country/world, and also "stimulate the economy, by virtue of its sheer size."

    1. Re:I'm not claiming we shouldn't fund NASA, but... by Sunda666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      sorry to nitpick on you, but I dont think any of USA's military budget is used to
      build AK47's... these are made in sweatshops all over the third world (and china).
      There are some knock-offs made in the balcans, too.

      I do agree about the missiles, tough. Expensive shit, and they keep building thousands
      of them.

      cheers

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
  39. The question of universal origins is not science by anomaly · · Score: 1, Interesting

    With all due respect, the question of origins is a philosophical one rather than a scientific one. It is not possible to use the scientific method to determine origins.

    The creationist and the evolutionist are in the same boat. Neither can observe, record, repeat the process.

    Both are constrained to collect extant data and propose theories about what caused the universe. In that respect, they are limited to speculation.

    Speculation is unlikely to provide an answer. On this idea, CS Lewis said: "It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by a splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

    Studying the shape of the splash is science, and that I do not oppose. Having scientists comment of meaning (the why question) as a result of their "splash" studies is laughable.

    For that matter, it is not possible for scientists to say with certainty how the universe was prior to its existence. This is not science, but speculation and should be named as such.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
  40. Re:Waste of money by TheKey · · Score: 1

    There might not be other intelligent life out there, but there's certainly some sort of life out there somewhere.

    --
    My Journal - 1,337 fans and countin
  41. Seems like a waste... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...AND a smokescreen. There are literally hundreds of witnesses that held military, intelligence, and private postitions with proof to show that "they" have been visiting us for some time now, and that our gov knows quite a bit about "them". Yes, I know this sounds "crazy" but the proof simply shows otherwise.

    Read "Disclosure" by Dr. Greer and "UFO's and the National Security State" by Richard M. Dolan. Two extremeley well documented and referenced books among thousands. Many state that they have proof that we "see" these things on radar constantly, and that they are commonplace at NORAD, so why are we spending money on trying to find radio transmissions from accross the galaxy? I say open a book, do the research, and then ask these people to simply disclose the truth.

    Done and done. No more of this crap, deception, and wasted expenditure.

  42. Re:Waste of money by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think that if you really wanted to save money, SETI would be one of the last programs you should cut. The total budget is $10 million a year not including the cost of building new telescopes which were privately funded. The article doesn't mention how much the grants are worth but I don't think the amount is going to come anywhere near their budget. The US government alone has spent $60 billion dollars on a missile defense system that doesn't work yet. Compared to other programs, SETI is extremely cheap. Cutting funding to them to save money while useless programs 600x as large still exist is ludicrous.

    Unlike missile defense, SETI has at least succeeded in their original goal of mapping out 1000 stars. Their next goal is a million stars. Alternatively, SETI has succeeded in a another field. Because of their lack of funding, SETI's need for computing power helped to pioneer the use of grid computing. Although, this is a side benefit, SETI first showed how massive grid computing is possible at a minimal of expense.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  43. Funding? What funding? by nicodemus05 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    We are funding a fictitious war over 100 million.

    There was a headlining story on the NYT yesterday:

    Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.

    My math might be worse than Dubya's, but I figure it at about $130 million A DAY.

    While it's great that we're "funding" SETI, perhaps some of the money we're pouring into Iraq would be better spent on science. Mars, anyone? Zubrin's plan calls for $30 billion for a long term program, just over 7 months worth of war. Which would you prefer, nonexistant WMDs or a manned landing on the Red Planet?

    --
    while (!sleep){

    sheep++;

    }

  44. Re:Pseudoscience on both sides - CS Lewis & SF by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

    My problem with SETI is how do we know when it has failed? If there are millions of indistinguishable stones to overturn looking for treasure, and you can only overturn a thousand, is it really science?

    It's impossible to see every single square mile of the Earth, but that doesn't make travelling less worthwile.

    Funding based on mere beliefs in ETs or God(s) should either both or neither be funded.

    We know that intelligent life can exist - we're the proof of that. We don't have any hard scientific evidence that God exists. That's a fairly major difference.

    Something like an eye should take billions of years, not millions.

    Source, please?

  45. Re:Pseudoscience on both sides - CS Lewis & SF by Cujo · · Score: 1

    Even given that this is true (it's not true at all), why does this make evolutionary biology pseudoscience? What is your definition of pseudoscience?

    --

    Helium balloons want to be free.

  46. Oil on Mars? useless by Cili · · Score: 1

    If there were oil on Mars it would only prove there was life, a while ago. But echonomically, it would be completely useless because you need oxygen to burn it.

  47. You're a few states off by momerath2003 · · Score: 1

    Actually, stranger beings reside in California.

    --
    I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
  48. No link to SETI? by mobets · · Score: 1

    Not sure why someone would write an article about SETI with that many links without puting a link the the actual SETI@Home web site.

    SETI@Home

    --

    It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    1. Re:No link to SETI? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      What do you mean with "the actual SETI@Home web site"? Seti@Home is one of the many SETI projects around, though arguably the most famous. For a comparison, you could say that Linux is something like Unix@home, but it's not the one and only Unix.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:No link to SETI? by mobets · · Score: 1

      I mean the one you would go to to download the SETI@Home client. Also the same one you would go to for information pertaining to the SETI@Home project. It also hapens to be the site you would go to if you wanted to change any of the details for your SETI@home account.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    3. Re:No link to SETI? by kyletinsley · · Score: 1

      Not sure why someone would write an article about SETI with that many links without puting a link the the actual SETI@Home web site.

      Maybe because "Seti@Home" isn't getting the funding. S.E.T.I. is an acronym, and there are hundreds of organizations and thousands of people who are actively pursuing it.

      The "Seti Institute" is getting the funding, and it's not going to be used for funding seti@home projects. That's why there was no link to it.

    4. Re:No link to SETI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SETI@home != SETI. Understand?

  49. Don't call us, we'll call you by jeepliberty · · Score: 1
    Back in the 80's or early 90's I was in the audience at an Annual Space Congress in Cocoa Beach, Florida when the Principal Investigator (PI) for SETI gave a presentation.

    During the Q and A session, someone asked him about UFO's. He really flew off he handle, said they did not exist and did not want his research dollars to be confused with UFO research.

    He essentially said: "Aliens: Don't call us. We'll call you".

    Its hard to believe that someone who is looking for alien life in distant gallaxies cannot believe that they are already here.

    1. Re:Don't call us, we'll call you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nail on the head. How in the WORLD could he discount literally hundreds of hours of testimony from extremely credible witnesses (military, intelligence, all with nothing to gain accept ridicule), thousands of books, etc...

      Extremophiles, protiens literally falling from space (asteroids), finding new planets every day, etc...

      Sure doesn't seem very scientific. I would like ALL evidence pondered, not just their extremely narrow search avenue.

      It almost seems...ahem..."crazy" not to.

    2. Re:Don't call us, we'll call you by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      Ok, Elliot it's time to phone home.

    3. Re:Don't call us, we'll call you by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      Nail on the head. How in the WORLD could he discount literally hundreds of hours of testimony from extremely credible witnesses (military, intelligence, all with nothing to gain accept ridicule), thousands of books, etc...

      Counterexample: There are thousands of Scientologists in the world. If you met many of them, they would seem to be reasonable people, credible, honest. Yet would you believe any of the tenets of the crackpot Scientology "religion" they would tell you if you asked? (and if you don't know how lunatic these teachings are, visit here or here).

      Most reasonable people would answer no, they would not believe any of it. So just because a few thousand people make these claims does not make it so, regardless of their motives. You don't have to be seeking monetary reward to be gullible (as those thousands of Scientologists so adequately prove).

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    4. Re:Don't call us, we'll call you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's quite a difference.

      There's no proof to coincide with their particular "religion". Not one shred.

      In contrast, you could fill a library with the opposite for the reality of visitation. Millions have seen these things. Are you going to be the one to tell Astronaut Edgar Mitchell that he's lying? FAA Division Chief John Callahan? Astronaut Gordon Cooper? Admiral Lord Hill-Norton: Five-Star Admiral, Former Head of the British Ministry of Defense? People with whom we trusted with launch keys of nuclear missles? Are you serious? The list is hundreds long and reads like a military and intelligence reunion! I'm sorry, but to compare these people with "scientologists" is just silly. These are people who knew that the only thing they would be recieving in return for their "disclosure" was ridicule. Nothing more. Not more members into their "group", not money, nothing. They KNEW this, and still came out. People with families and careers. People whos resume would make mine and yours look like a McDonald's fry cook. They came bearing proof in many forms. Tapes, papers, transcripts, video, photos, etc... all verifiable.

      The difference is huge.

    5. Re:Don't call us, we'll call you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well the difference between UFOs and SETI is that SETI is amenable to the scientific method, and UFOs are not.

      With SETI you are looking for a needle in a haystack, but you are looking in a structured way for something tangible.

      With UFOs, you are deluged with hoaxers, lunatics, the credulous, idiots, freaks, cranks, unreliable testimony and images which have many other explanations. You have nothing tangible.

  50. Re:Waste of money by TnkMkr · · Score: 1

    I would argue that sending the money to social programs make it 'as good as gone' just as fast. With our current set up we are building a society of couch potatos who can make more money of unemployment than they can working.

    I would rather see the money spend on people striving to answer a very difficult question. And in the process forced to develop technology that has very general applications. The money is not wasted... after all, all that money 'wasted' on the early space exploration only generated:

    computers (no economic return there...)
    Plastics (nope that stuff sure dosen't get used)
    Fuel Cell advancement (Never see a market for those trikets)
    Satillites (what economic benifit could possibly come from that)

    And that is the short list. People at the time groaned about the wast of money on such a useless task as 'getting to the moon' what people never understand is that it is not just the goal that is important, but everything that has to be designed or invented to reach the goal, that is where the payoff is found.

  51. There are at least 59 alien civilizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Friends, I think the facts point to the existence of at least 59 extraterrestrial civilizations. I submit that all life .. whether it is Earth-based or not .. is cursed by sin. Because of this, all life is in need of salvation from that sin. We know from historical record (the Bible) that the Lord Jesus Christ spent 33 years cleansing this planet of sin. Because the Bible is inerrant, we must assume that 33 years is the exact amount of time required to purge the sin of a planet. (After all, if it were more or less, that would imply an imperfect Christ .. something that is not allowed by Scripture.)

    We also know that Jesus pledged to return one day. So far, He hasn't. This means that he is most likely purging other civilizations of sin. Christ died 1,970 years ago; assuming that He is not bound by the speed of light, that gives Him enough time to purge 59 planets of sin. (If he is limited by lightspeed, things get complicated, but there is no reason to assume that such an arbitrary natural law applies to God.)

    The point is that with each passing year that Jesus does not return, the odds for extraterrestrial life go up. This is a good thing. I for one am excited about the prospect of life among the stars, and I am convinced that it exists. Don't let an overly-narrow interpretation of Scripture dictate a purely ethnocentric worldview to you; it will only hold you back.

  52. Origins of life != origins of the universe. by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Certainly "it is not possible for scientists to say with certainty how the universe was prior to its existence". I've never heard one claim otherwise, though I have read theories that state it is categorically impossible to know what was before.)

    However the "origins of life" are not necessarily a one off historical event the sort of which we are forever prevented from revisiting. Indeed, one of the questions is whether life has originated independantly in different places. We do not know whether we can "observe, record, repeat the process". SETI is looking for evidence that it is a process that may have occurred independantly a number of times.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  53. Re:Waste of money by Gutboy_Barrelhouse · · Score: 1
    gets punters involved in science

    SETI@Home attracts... football players?

  54. Re:Pseudoscience on both sides - CS Lewis & SF by scotch · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Most creationists define pseudoscience as those scientific fields that disagree with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, when pressed, creationists will categorize all or parts of the following fields as pseudoscience:
    • Evolution
    • Genetics
    • Biology
    • Geology
    • Astronomy
    • Physics
    As you move down in the list, it is more likely that the creationist will object to a smaller portion of the scientific field. To think like the creationist, it is sufficient to merely apply the following litmus test to science:

    Does a particular field, theory, or fact disagree in any way with a literal interpretation of the Bible? If so, that part of science is pseudoscience. Otherwise, the creationist holds no objection to that portion of science.

    The otherwise clause in this simpleton logic is especially telling: for the creationists, even those purporting to be creation scientists, create no science, do no experiments, and make no judgements in the scientific field except when required to attempt to discredit those portions that undermine their religious doctrine.

    Really, it's as simple as that. Any other answer you get will be self-deception on the part of the creationist.

    --
    XML causes global warming.
  55. a clue... by resignator · · Score: 1, Informative

    To all the morons complaining about NASA funding SETI...please get a clue. I mean you wanna help poor people right and this SETI funding could go to feed so many right? WRONG! The amount of funding SETI is getting is less than 10% of what we spend in ONE DAY on foriegn military actions. This is also about the same amount of money GWB raises at one of his campaign dinners. So get a clue about shit before you break out the bleeding heart feed the poor bullshit. I am all for helping people but I cant even possibly imagine how NOT funding SETI is gonna make any difference at all. It is such a tiny drop in the bucket its sad almost. I am so sure the people complaining about this are donating their time to soup kitchens and such too, not. Hipocrits...

    --
    "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
  56. Thank SETI@Home by bigpat · · Score: 1

    I think the SETI project has the SETI@Home Screensaver to thank, a project that provides both useful computational power and an indication of the public support that the program has. Although people might really just want a nice screensaver and don't expect to find little green men.

  57. Re:Jeez by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm sure people thought the automobile was a worthless idea. I'm sure people thought space travel was a worthless idea. I'm sure people though that a microwave was a worthless idea.

    Right...

    You should be modded as a troll. It's people like you who stifle innovation and discovery.

  58. Re:The question of universal origins is not scienc by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how it's unscientific to try and figure out how something originated. Sure, it'll be hard, but I wouldn't say impossible. Right now, sure, maybe it is impossible, but maybe not in the future. Furthermore, don't put creationists in the same boat as a scientist. They are completely different things. A creationists "theories" are not based on fact, but rather on half truths and word of mouth. I have yet to see creationists use real data. Your whole "splash" analogy was stupid. A person can study the shape of the splash, and other factors involved to get why the splash was created like it was. If you want to talk about something philosophical, talk about the meaning of life, not the origin of life. Perhaps this is what you meant.

  59. Re:Jeez by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    Now that's funny, it totally posted this under the wrong topic.

  60. So, their five-year mission... by centauri · · Score: 3, Funny
    ... is to seek out new life forms and new civilizations?

    /me desperately hopes no one has made this joke yet.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
  61. To shed some light on the subject by mcscary13 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I made a short documentary film about SETI last year covering the origins of the SETI search, Drake's equation, the various groups involved, and people's opinions about SETI. Maybe some of you might find it interesting. Its a 25 MB download in Quicktime format and you can find it here: http://homepage.mac.com/mcgeary/seti/ Enjoy!

  62. Re:The question of universal origins is not scienc by ChuckleBug · · Score: 0, Troll

    With all due respect, the question of origins is a philosophical one rather than a scientific one. It is not possible to use the scientific method to determine origins.

    The creationist and the evolutionist are in the same boat. Neither can observe, record, repeat the process


    This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. While it's true that we can't replicate the origin of the Universe, or life itself, the scientific method is perfectly applicable to these questions. You formulate an hypothesis, then observe the evidence to disprove or confirm said hypothesis. The repetition comes in finding different kinds of evidence in different places. You can predict something would be found based on an hypothesis, then look at the evidence and see if it doesn't fit. If what you were saying is true, the entire science of astronomy is pure guesswork without the slightest rational basis. Please.

    Both are constrained to collect extant data and propose theories about what caused the universe. In that respect, they are limited to speculation.

    You sound like an ID proponent. This conclusion is absurd, and results from intellectual laziness. If you think creationism has anything to do with evidence, you're either ignorant or a liar. Creationist "institutes" openly declare that they *already know the answer*, and that the only acceptable "evidence" is that which supports their predetermined answer, ignoring or distorting all else. It is *not* science.

    What you refer to as "evolutionists" really means "everyone except the creationists." To say their goals or methods are more than superficially similar is ridiculous.

    Speculation is unlikely to provide an answer. On this idea, CS Lewis said: "It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by a splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

    I remember when I though CS Lewis was deep. Actually, he is to philosophy what Chutes and Ladders is to games of skill. His works are a study in poorly constructed arguments, guided by the desire to shore up a preconceived idea rather than seek truth.

    For that matter, it is not possible for scientists to say with certainty how the universe was prior to its existence. This is not science, but speculation and should be named as such.

    Asking how something was before it existed is gibberish. But, assuming for the sake of argument, that your statement makes sense, science doesn't say *anything* with absolute certainty. It narrows down the possibilities, and can give us knowledge to a very high degree of confidence (as one famous scientist put it, some things are not known absolutely, but are known with sufficient basis that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent - Like "the Earth is roughly spherical."), but all scientific knowledge is potentially subject to revision. Some things are very hard to overturn because they've been demonstrated from so many directions one would need to dismantle just about everything we know to do so. Gravity is one of these things, and so is evolution.

    I have a strong suspicion you're a creationism proponent, since this has become a standard creationist tactic: It's all the same, creationism and evolution are equally valid because it's all just guesswork, yadda yadda. Feigning neutrality is pretty standard.

    Then again, you might just not know what you're talking about, in which case I apologize for calling you a creationist, but suggest you need to put your ideas back in the oven and let them bake a little longer.

  63. Quote from Times article by Quixotic+Raindrop · · Score: 2, Insightful
    According to the journal Nature, Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who called the hearing, said the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe would be "one of the most astounding discoveries in human history."

    "Funding should match public interest," Mr. Smith said, "and I don't believe it does."

    I disagree that interest levels should be a determinant of funding levels. One of the things that, IMO, the goverment must do is fund activities that are worthy endeavors regardless of the public interest in them or their potential profitability. If it were profitable to search for intelligent life, there would be an entire sector of our economy making (and spending) money to perform the search, and SETI would long ago have had all the money it needed to perform that search, and several other organizations would have cropped up to compete with them. This argument also applies to, say, prescription drugs for the elderly, indigent, and unemployed: it seems to me to be pretty clear that just because a pharmecutical company can't make a billion extra dollars a year in profit that they should be able to deny prescription drugs to people who must have them to survive (or, live a reasonably comfortable life). Since a profit-making organization is unwilling to perform that action, then either a not-for-profit, or the government, must step in and perform it. I am not seeing much in the way of the not-for-profit help, which leaves only the government.

    I am not convinced that the bureaucracy that we have in America is the best tool for that job, but it sure seems like it is, presently, the only tool.
    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    1. Re:Quote from Times article by kyletinsley · · Score: 1

      I disagree that interest levels should be a determinant of funding levels. One of the things that, IMO, the goverment must do is fund activities that are worthy endeavors regardless of the public interest in them or their potential profitability.

      He said it "should match public interest", not profitability. You added the part about profitability yourself. Government funds SHOULD match the public interest. Government (in a capitalist society) should be funding things that the people are interested in and want, but that can't be supplied by the private sector because it is not profitable.

      The last thing we want to do is to encourage government to spend money on things that the people do NOT want. That's where you get 'hideous wastes of money' from...

      Think about it until it makes sense. In a representative government system, the government should be executing the will of the people. If the government is actively avoiding the activities that it's citizens want, and doing things that they don't want, then it's time to get rid of that government...

      (Your example of the prescription drugs for elderly/poor/jobless demonstrates this perfectly. Why would the government provide free medical service to such people? Because a LOT of people are interested in it, and it's not profitable for corporations to do it (so they don't).)

  64. Great for SETI but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why are we allowing congress to cut funding then making up that funding on our OWN ? Screw them, SETI should bill congress back for each unit.

  65. Who cares about oil? by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    What makes you think anyone would care about oil on Mars...and more than they care about the coal, frozen chunks of natural gas, iron (not iron ore, but actual iron), gold, titanium, etc. that are floating around where they'd be even easier to get at than oil on Mars?

    The only thing I can figure: most planners / politicians don't really believe in space, any more than they believe in Santa's workshop, history, or the constitution of the country that they "serve". These sorts things are all handy to have in your bag of speach writting tricks but that's about it.

    -- MarkusQ

  66. Re:Missionaries by nimblebrain · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen folks point this out, but...

    I don't think the aliens would take it kindly if we sent Marklar to try to teach them about Marklar and save their Marklars from Marklar, if we can't even get Marklars here to follow the same Marklar.

    They might get offended :)

    - Nimble
    --
    Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)
  67. Re:Funding? What funding? by parkov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would prefer $3.9 billion a month went to c) the domestic front in healthcare for the poor and elderly, education, and social programs.

  68. SETI Institute not doing SETI by ToSeek · · Score: 2, Interesting
    SETI Institute: Dr. Christopher Chyba leads a team that will investigate a wide range of questions in astrobiology, including the origin of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, a comparison of nitrogen and carbon cycles on Earth and Mars, the possible habitability of Jupiter's moon Europa, and the prospects for finding habitable worlds around cool stars.
    In other words, they will be doing environmental modeling and research - there's no "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" being funded. People seem to be missing this little point.
  69. Re:Missionaries by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

    LOL well put.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  70. What an example of a waste of Federal bucks by Reverend+Raven · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is the kind of thing that pisses me off. Personally I think our Government spend faaaaaar too much money as it is, and then this story comes along. I'm all for SETI and stuff, but I don't think this is a totally worthwhile use of my tax dollars.

    Pork spending. I'm sure someone at NASA has a brother in law that works for SETI or something similar and that's how the funding got there. I seriously doubt it was because of evidence or anything solid and concrete.

    I mean, we have enough problems that the Federal Government is involved with already...and now they're going to throw more money at a cause best funded by private dollars? Insane. While I think NASA is a worthy objective (atleast partly, it should be privitized)...I don't want Federal Money going to support something like SETI.

    The reason they cut the funding off in the first place is that it is frivolous. Like grant money given to artists and crap like that. Let's see Government give another big across the board tax cut..raise revenue back a little and stop funding all these silly programs that are clearly private groups and shouldn't receive Federal Dollars.

    Let's secure our boarders and get better education in our schools and fix our roads and things of that nature before we start spending Tax Dollars hailing Alpha Centuari.

    Only you can stop the stupid Represenatives and Senators wasting our money. End pork spending.

    --

    --Reverend Raven
    Desperate days demand dire deeds.
  71. Perhaps NASA is hoping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for aliens to send them a better shuttle design.

  72. Huntsville by Reverend+Raven · · Score: 1

    Your ignorance is showing, first poster. If you knew anything about Alabama as a state you would instantly know that the Redstone Rocket, the Saturn V, and lots of other space technologies came out of Huntsville, AL. Ever heard of Dr. Werner Von Braun? Lived and worked right here in Alabama. NASA, the Space and Rocket Center, Space Camp...all that crap is here. Yes, in AlaFuckingBama.

    I hate Alabama because I've lived here all my life. You people assume that just because we're in the South we're backwards morons. While this is in part true (but no more than any other state)..this kind of blind regionalism is no more right when making fun of a southerner than it is making fun of a New Yorker or a D.C. native, or an Eskimo.

    And no I do not have a southern accent. I don't understand it either.

    --

    --Reverend Raven
    Desperate days demand dire deeds.
    1. Re:Huntsville by TCQuad · · Score: 0

      the Redstone Rocket, the Saturn V, and lots of other space technologies came out of Huntsville, AL

      I think you might have just proven his point. When that many space vehicles come out of one place, I'd be searching there for other-worldly creatures, too.

  73. Allright!!, it's about time SETI got more $$ by thenarftwit · · Score: 1

    You have to fund basic science, otherwise, you would have future scientific discoveries and technologies dry up and your economy and empire would eventually crash faster than it normally would (rise and fall of empires). SETI research is very important, SETI@Home proved that BIG supercomputers could be built from the internet, it has provided driving impetus to develope better low-noise reciever technology, optical SETI research advancments, ie: you train the next generation of researchers who "go on to discover things like "the cure for acancer etc"...the fact that the cancelation of NASA funded SETI 10 years ago was very pollitically motivated (if it had a "easy military component" to it, it would have survived)). War based societies tend to crash faster (I believe that this was a basic tennant of the people who used to critisize the old Soviet Union empire, was that it was entirely militairy based, it basiclly had little or no free thought to explore and do things that were not of immediate militairy advantage due to the fact that all resources are put into war and there is no support for the arts, sciences etc..so no good ideas get developed or discovered,), so basiclly, in these scocieties, if the eviroment changes, your toast. Any way, the discovery of life out there will be the biggest motivation for humans to expand beyond earth, maybe stop fighting each other so much, and develop cheap nanotech to get out there and do things, who knows?

  74. "most important discovery yet"? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    I never understood why it was so hard to give funding to a program that could make the most important discovery yet

    Are you smoking crack? It would be entirely useless. Communications would be impossible(remember, the closest object is what, hundreds, if not thousands of light years away?), as would be travelling there(we can barely get people to the moon.)

    The SETI people are an embarassment to the scientific community- they're basically religious fanatics, almost cultists- convinced that there MUST be intelligent life out there, and they're arrogant enough to think that they have a snowball's chance in hell of actually discovering life if it does exist. Have you ever stopped to think of the sheer impossibility of almost every aspect of the SETI project?

  75. Re:The question of universal origins is not scienc by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    Mod this up!

    I modded it up earlier but some dickhead changed my mod and the system will not allow me to fix it. Differences of opinion by the moderators should not reflect on the quality of the post and this guy makes a very good point IMHO that most will agree with.

    The idea that it is not possible to determine origins is patently absurd and flies in the face of decades of work in Paleontoloy, geology, planetatry geology, atrophysics and so forth.

    It is equally patently absurd to label as a "TROLL" someone who takes issue with the closed mind of someone who suggests that:

    The creationist and the evolutionist are in the same boat. Neither can observe, record, repeat the process

    I can mod the original post as a troll and considered doing so, but the purpose of slashdot is to promote intelligent discussion so I left it as it was and modded up the reply.

    All can see the result and form their own personal opinions. I think it is quite clear where my opinions are. The REPLY does not deserve to be labled as a TROLL!

  76. Throwing a wrench into the Drake Equation by cdn-programmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In reply to your post, you do make a point. However I would like to draw attention to a single aspect of the Drake Equation.

    On Earth in the 50's we built powerful transmitters and the planet for decades glowed in the Radio Spectrum. By the year 2000 it was still glowing, but new communications technologies had formed such as satelight and cellular. I suspect that neither satelight nor cellular "leaks" anything near the level of signal that radio and TV still "leak" so I wonder if the Seti program for instance would be able to detect say cellular usage on a nearby planet.

    In my mind it is quite possible that a technologically advanced civilization may develope communications technology that doesn't "leak" the way our communications does now. If so, then your point about say a 300 year window is well taken but the disapearance of signals may not indicate the "death" of the civilization... it may simply coincide with an advance in their technology and a phasing out of obsolete technology.

  77. You described your own post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His works are a study in poorly constructed arguments, guided by the desire to shore up a preconceived idea rather than seek truth.

    1. Re:You described your own post by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Wow. Real substantive reply. You must be the guy who modded me a troll.

  78. An interesting point of view. by VladTheBad · · Score: 1

    "I think you are wrong, it's really not an "investment" of money at all, as there is no chance of return on investment."

    I think that society could make a return on that investment... because we would again be in a cold war.
    But instead of it being "US vs USSR" it'd be "Earth vs Aliens"

    Sure, it wouldn't have to come down to war, or invasion or anything.... but you can bet your butt it'd get inventors, scientists, and engineers working overtime coming up with new ideas and new ways of doing things.

    So even if we don't get fusion out of it, at least we might get another TANG.....

    while the rewards wouldn't be monetary, they would be cultural, and societal rewards.....

    Or, again I could be wrong and people would panic, join cults and drink some crazy kool-aid

  79. economically useless, but not scientifically.... by VladTheBad · · Score: 1

    If I had the power, I'd mod you up to a +6.

    If mars had oil...... not only would it pretty much prove the existance of previous life on mars.... but possibly different life.....

    Plants on earth take in CO2 and release O2.......

    the atmosphere of mars is like 80+% CO2 if I remember right..... I'd think if the atmosphere didn't escape into space.... that it would make mars much easier to teraform....(assuming water, or ability to crack hydrogen from the ground, and combine with C02). use the greenhouse gas to heat up the planet, and turn it into a giant greenhouse of ferns, beans, prairie...... anything to kick up the O2 levels and heat the place up, get some more nutrients available...... even if it took 300 years to get mars to the point where you could farm plants for food outside of domes and such...... it would give us hope.

  80. Rebuttal: by VladTheBad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, I don't smoke crack.....

    Sure, even if communication is impossible.... it could create a scientific drive to invent some method to communicate.

    I don't think the SETI people expect to find proof of intelligent life "any day now"

    I think that a snowballs chance in hell is good enough.
    50 years from now.... the event horison of places that have seen our signals, AND had time to respond, will have increased by 25 light years.

    Yes, that doesn't get you a whole lot farther, but at least it opens up more doors.

    The problem is... if we don't listen now, listening later might not do us any good......

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

      SETI is a waste of time.

      On the timescales the universe deals in, there is a very short period of time between when a civilization gains the ability to communicate wirelessly and when it destroys itself with its technology.

      Do you think that we, as a techcologically advanced civilization, will be around for another thousand years? What about ten thousand? One nuclear war, one accident in an infectious disease lab, one new plague... it doesn't take much to wipe out human civilization. Eventually, we'll do it: it's a matter of "when" rather than "if."

      So, for each civilization, there is a window of, at most, a few thousand years for which it will transmit a signal.

      Now consider the type of transmission. At first, we started with enormously powerful transmitters using primitive modulation schemes - overcoming limits in early analog techology with high power. As our technology develops, our signals get weaker but more numerous. We use complex modulation and things like spread spectrum signalling. In short, our signals look more and more like noise. There is order to the chaos, but will that order be discernible a hundred lightyears away?

      It's not unreasonable to expect that eventually, high power broadcast transmission will cease altogether. A billion short range, low power communication nodes in a giant self-organizing network are indistinguishable from noise if you step back a bit.

      So there's a short window in which a civilization can transmit, and a shorter window still when it transmits the sort of basic singals that can be detected from a thousand lightyears away.

      That's time against you.

      Now consider the enormity of space, the enormous amounts of naturally occuring RF in the universe, and the inverse distance law, and you really shouldn't bother. Use the computer power to do something worthwhile.

      But, you say, what if the aliens are an enligtened race that wishes to make its presence known. What if they're reaching out, trying to tell anyone else out there that they're not alone... giving new perspective and new significance to life... ...this kind of thinking makes me think that SETI is a cult rather than a scientific organization. A bunch of people believing in a Carl Sagan inspired fantasy, despite the simple reality that should be obvious to anyone claiming to be a scientist.

  81. waste of time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI is the biggest waste of time and money. It is NOT a worthwhile endeavor. It is useless. SETI is just one huge PR firm. Basically the extistance of SETI what they do is supposed to disprove the existance of extra terrestrial life. It's just part of many groups and people who spread misinformation. I assume the governemnt stopped funding a decade ago because they knew they could get private funding. SETI is just like all those government hired pieces of crap who spread lies about how Aliens don't exist and they try to prove it scientifically (like that spec is just space dust or something not a flying ship, etc) but it's all bullcrap. Yes, they would go to these lengths. There are so many things going on that most people aren't aware of. So many things that would blow your mind...

  82. waste of time and money (corrections) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI is the biggest waste of time and money. It is NOT a worthwhile endeavor. It is useless. SETI is just one huge PR firm. Basically the extistance of SETI and what they do is supposed to disprove the existance of extra terrestrial life. It's just part of many groups and people who spread misinformation. I assume the governemnt stopped funding a decade ago because they knew they could get private funding. SETI is just like all those government hired pieces of crap who spread lies about how Aliens don't exist and they try to prove it scientifically (like that spec is just space dust or something not a flying ship, etc) but it's all bullcrap. Yes, they would go to these lengths. There are so many things going on that most people aren't aware of. So many things that would blow your mind...

    1. Re:waste of time and money (corrections) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still misspelled "existence."

  83. Re:Waste of money by Jormundgard · · Score: 1

    Funding towards the arts fulfills its intentions: a novel, play, sculpture, etc. is produced. The project has often already been approved, so you already know what you're getting. And it will be something that can be enjoyed by a sizeable fraction of the population.

    SETI funding is put towards seeking something that, knowing what we know, would be phenomenally unlikely. And if there *was* contact, communication of any sort would be just as difficult.

    Funding for the arts will produce something. SETI will produce little. Yes, there is that great seti@home network, but running climatological models could have also revealed similar technology. Instead, consider that mankind still has only the vaguest understand of how the atmospheres and oceans work, or even how fluids and solids behave, how the human body works, how the *mind* works, etc. A better understanding in any of these fields would have positive contributions to our way of life and our economy.

    I see many readers here captivated by the notion of aliens or quarks, but I would hope that they would recognize that the excitement of these topics clouds their judgement. Let us hope that those with the wallet feel differently.

  84. Find ET? Find Osama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take all the effort in the senseless effort to find extraterrestrial intelligence and apply it to find terrorists on earth! Distribute a free screen-saver program that takes the unused CPU cycles of millions of computers owned by red-blooded Americans, use them to analyze Echelon intercepts, and figure out where the terrorist is hiding!

  85. SETI@home not included. by SETIGuy · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately we're not included in this one. We're not part of the SETI institute. We've had a proposal for our next generation instrument (SERENDIP V, the source of SETI@HOME II data) pending at NASA for more than a year. The word has been that it's been recommended for funding (as of last October) but thus far we have not received any official notification. It's hard to tell whether the delay in funding is financial difficulty at NASA or pollitical difficulty.

    We recently got a moderate grant from NSF to persue our hydrogen survey and a search for giant pulses from ETs, evaporating black holes and/or pulsars.

    Right now we only have a small quantity of gift funds to use toward developing SETI@HOME II and SERENDIP V.

    Of course there's always the chance that gift funds pot will get larger.

    1. Re:SETI@home not included. by Lispy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the hint. I will think it over and promote it. After all our german Setigroup is more successfull than some countries ;-)

  86. Re:Waste of money by Jmstuckman · · Score: 1

    "As much as i would love to support the search for life in the galaxy sometimes its not a good idea. Although i do think that as humans we should try to search any money we put into a project like this is as good as gone and in finacial hard times like this we cant afford to throw around much."

    Yes, but think about where the money is going. We're not throwing it into the wind or giving it to another country. It's going to our own citizens to work on this project. It's creating jobs for people and reducing the unemployment rate -- it's not "lost".

  87. Re:The question of universal origins is not scienc by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

    All can see the result and form their own personal opinions. I think it is quite clear where my opinions are. The REPLY does not deserve to be labled as a TROLL!

    Thanks. I've seen a lot of creationist drivel on slashdot, and never modded it down because I disagreed with it - I ignored it or replied. I think it's pretty clear they have nothing to say to refute me so they resort to childish abuse of the moderation system and AC dung-flinging.

    BTW, how did your mod get changed? It says the only mod the post got was as a troll. I guess I must hope for justice in metamod.

  88. Poor, poor NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll probably need the extra radio/computing resources to find their Mars rovers.

  89. Re:Jeez by poopdik · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'm sure people thought the automobile was a worthless idea. I'm sure people thought space travel was a worthless idea. I'm sure people though that a microwave was a worthless idea.

    Yeah, you're right. Sifting through junk signals for space life is exactly on the same level of practicality as a machine that can carry you across land at 10 times the speed previously attainable. It's people like you that stifle innovation. Besides, the automobile is a perfect example of my point. If SETI were a private venture, then people like you with faith in things like that would be free to invest their own money in it. Instead of extorting money from the tax paying public. Then, you and your faith could sit on big piles of money someday smoking cigars and wearing monocles when it all just finally "paid off", which of course.. I'm sure it will.

  90. Re:Waste of money by gaelicwizard · · Score: 1

    That was a beautiful portrait of the Virgin Mary!

    --
    -- JP
  91. How the last mod gets changed by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    The last person to make a mod over-rides the ones that come before. Perhaps there is a "troll cutoff" but I'm not exactly sure how the algorithm works.

    Thus, we can have a post modded up to say +4 interesting and someone takes issue and mods it to say +3 troll and it will stay labeled as troll unless someone else mods it back up.

    This is a little inconsistancy in the moderation system that probably should be fixed. I could see going from say +3 interesting to +2 interesting via applying a "overrated" mod but to go from anything modded positive to "troll" without first going through either 0 or 1 seems to be a little inconsistant.

    I think "redundant" works this way too. It would be funny to see a post rated as "+4 redundant" of course. I could waste a mod point to test this but I would not want to to reflect on anyone making a post so I won't. :-)

    1. Re:How the last mod gets changed by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're right about the label being the last one that sticks, but according to the auto-email I got from slashdot, your previous mod was removed because you posted to this story and when you do that it negates all the mods you made to it.

      Thanks, still.

  92. Re:Jeez by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    Just the chance to contact intelligent life somewhere in the universe should be a better alternative than not. After all, such contact could be helpful for us. There's a huge oppurtunity cost that shouldn't be passed up. Wouldn't it be nice to know that we're not alone? Wouldn't it be cool if we learned something from them? Besides, it's not like the project is without scientific merit, as you're making it seem. And if you want to bitch about government spending, you might as well start ranting how the government wastes so much more tax money conducting the most stupid of researches. More money is wasted on finding out things like "why people fart", and "Does drinking a lot of beer make you fat", and other stupid things. The government researching things like that is infinitely more stupid than the chance, the mere chance of having some sort of contact with another intelligent life form.

  93. Funding due to new discoveries. by Agent+R · · Score: 1

    This is fascinating. Usually when NASA pulls the funding from a program, it stays pulled. Now they intend on restoring aid even though NASA may still leave most of the grunt work to private parties.

    This seems to stem from several things... the discovery of life in extreme environments, increased interest of exploring Mars, and the discoveries of planets around other star systems. (Guess that NASA is rethinking that extraterrestrial life is not as farfetched a concept after all.)

    This is going to be quite a century. :-)

    --
    !@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
  94. Re:Waste of money by kyletinsley · · Score: 1

    Although i do think that as humans we should try to search any money we put into a project like this is as good as gone and in finacial hard times like this we cant afford to throw around much.

    'Good as gone'?? The money is going into mainly jobs for people in the US... money that will keep circulating and helping the economy. It's also doing research, which has the potential to materially benefit our society and world as a whole. There is no 'waste' in this scenario.

    The only time you can really waste money is by putting it into something that is destroyed. Like say, putting hundreds of Billions of dollars into making bombs... The bombs themselves explode, so you can't salvage anything out of that. And whatever is nearby, is also mostly destroyed, meaning you need to use more money to rebuild it. That's how you throw money away...

  95. Seti and the Dead Aliens Talk Show by ratfynk · · Score: 1
    Here we go again. We are listening for signals from Elvis! Why in Sam Hill would any self respecting Alien use radio waves at the speed of light. We are looking for the most primitive form of signals. There are signals travelling >C its just we do not now how to detect them yet.

    EMR is not the only form of radiation. Einstien was wrong. One question, if a signal is travelling faster than C how do you tell? A radio might detect something in an extreemly short burst, but the signal would only be intellegable over extreemly long intercept distances.

    Well it is all academic there is no body out there thinking about extra long array detection, with overall antenna length in the order of say from here to Mars. The individual stations would only pick up short static like burst, however if we are to decode faster than light signals we will need to experiment with signal decompression and time expantion of recieved data. Who knows we might even hear that Paul is dead by playing them backwards.

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  96. another waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the economy is downhill and we are going to take a 5 year grant and flush it down the toilet, astrobiology is an important field, but listening for extraterrestrial radio signals is ludicrous