Slashdot Mirror


SETI Predicts We'll Find ETs by 2020

FTL writes "Based on the Drake Equation, Moore's Law, and the Allen Telescope, a new prediction has been made that Earth will make first contact with aliens within 20 years. Of course once we find the first aliens there's the question of can we decode their signals, would they spot our reply, and what's the lag time."

780 comments

  1. Other predictions by mrpuffypants · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I predict that I'll get laid by 2020....

    1. Re:Other predictions by JoeNiner · · Score: 5, Funny

      When you meet the aliens? Are you James T. Kirk?

      --
      Mod Me, Bee-yotch!!!
    2. Re:Other predictions by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I predict I'll get laid by aliens in 2020.

    3. Re:Other predictions by freqres · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's very likely that there are fugly alien chicks too.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    4. Re:Other predictions by double-oh+three · · Score: 1

      I predict the first transimission back will be "Please come get me off this hell-hole of a planet."

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
    5. Re:Other predictions by s20451 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, he's Zap Branigan. Kiff, I have made it with a woman! Inform the men.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    6. Re:Other predictions by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "And I predict that I'll get laid by 2020...."

      So are we all going to run a screen saver to search for a woman that'd be willing to do that with you so soon?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Other predictions by einstein · · Score: 1

      How can you call someone with the name "Mrpuffypants" Zap Branagan? Zap's slashdot name would have to be something like "Mrshortskirt".

    8. Re:Other predictions by inkdesign · · Score: 1

      Look behind you, a three-headed monkey!

    9. Re:Other predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Mac users, because they are homos.

    10. Re:Other predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about Kirk but,

      it's for sure he's not E. Cartman, because the alien probe will be going IN and not OUT of his ass..

    11. Re:Other predictions by operagost · · Score: 1

      I predict I'll find the monster that's been hiding in my closet next year.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Other predictions by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > the monster that's been hiding in my closet

      Do you mean this monster?

    13. Re:Other predictions by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      aliens contacted in 2020, arrive in 2021, just in time to be sued by SCO.

    14. Re:Other predictions by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      He's got pretty puffy legs...

  2. To Serve Man by SYFer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad "sending a radio message back will take centuries," because I'm not sure that a response back of "humans on earth, eh? we'll be right over," is a Good Thing (TM).

    --
    "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    1. Re:To Serve Man by kfg · · Score: 1

      The lag will be rather shorter if first contact is made with the mothership in LEO.

      KFG

    2. Re:To Serve Man by Kenrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For all we know, humans might rank at the cattle level on a galactic scale. You know - really stupid and very, very tasty.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    3. Re:To Serve Man by ld_hrothgar · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe this explains the sudden upswing in obesity... genetic programming from our Galactic Overlords starts the fattening up cycle in preperation for their return to the feed lot!

    4. Re:To Serve Man by untaken_name · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Come on, get serious! This is just plain ridiculous. Now, who wants a Super-Sized Big Mac meal with extra fries? Don't forget that apple pies are two for a dollar! Let me just get out of this chair...doh. Well, it has wheels, I'll just roll it to the golden arches.

    5. Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after 100 years of I Love Lucy reruns and millions billions of other foolish radio & TV signals being blasted in to space any chance of aliens listening to our (earth) attempts at making actual contact will probably be ignored...

    6. Re:To Serve Man by fraudrogic · · Score: 3, Funny

      "humans on earth, eh? we'll be right over,"

      The aliens are canadian?

      --
      I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
    7. Re:To Serve Man by orcus · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's a very good chance - providing they have seen our television shows.

      --
      First they burn books, then they burn people.
    8. Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans taste like chicken! ... "just cut 'em up like regular chickens!"

    9. Re:To Serve Man by Epistax · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know... do you want to raise animals that are constantly blowing eachother up?

    10. Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aliens are canadian?

      Oh no! It's all happening again!

    11. Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know... do you want to raise animals that are constantly blowing eachother up?

      Imagine thermonuclear cockfights...

    12. Re:To Serve Man by medelliadegray · · Score: 1

      dont be silly, we're not the cattle of the universe. we have dexterous fingers, an opposable thumb (i think thats the term)!

      we are no cattle of the universe--but we would probably make damn good slaves to cater to our new overlord's every need!

      --
      Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
    13. Re:To Serve Man by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Somewhat like Monkey butlers?

    14. Re:To Serve Man by deacon · · Score: 2, Informative
      For those who don't get the joke:

      To Serve Man

      Spoiler: The Joy of Cooking , with only one main ingredient.

      From the link:

      "To Serve Man" (March 2, 1962) adapted by Serling from Damon Knight's short story, is one of the most famous Zone episodes with its "Soylent Green" ending. A 9-foot tall Kanamit (Richard Kiel) has come to earth to create a golden age with the advanced technology of his race. However, Michael Chambers (Lloyd Bochner), a government decoding expert, learns to learn the true meaning of the title of the book left by the Kanamit. Not as much fun the second time around when the ending seems so obvious, "To Serve Man" teaches the old lesson that appearances can be deceiving, especially when dealing with strange visitors from another planet.

    15. Re:To Serve Man by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Well, that's just based on the 'linear intelligence' scale, which is made and judged mostly by less intelligent humans. You know what I mean; the scale where you lose points for playing video games and doing things that have a purpose, and gain points for reading mindless old books. There are a few other factors in this scale but I guess people following this idea will think whatever they want.

      Anyway here in reality, there isn't an intelligence that you can put into a box. Humans are incredibly technological; that's simply a trait. Some aliens might be more mind-oriented and capable of doing things with pure thought that some people might fear or just deny. Some could be more communicative and better with understanding. Some could be a cuddly race of catgirls.

      Hey, there's a lot of possibilities. It's pretty obvious, judging by the acceleration of communication and info in the last few decades, that man is just now crawling out of the hole. If you asked me I'd say the key has always been the 'communication' factor. If, for example, dogs had conceived of complex communication before we did, they'd probably be the ones putting us in boxes and selling us like groceries.

      So the thing is, that thanks to communication, we've become the most complex animal because we can understand the experiences of a whole lot of people, as opposed to just our own and a few others. It's only logical that the greatest forms of extraterrestrial life would be the ones that have the widest range of communication, and with this in mind, there are probably some very huge systems of information out there beyond our little Earth. It'd be nice to be part of that and have more to think about than the way your stupid roommate keeps leaving the bathroom light on and always turns the thermostat way the hell down and blasts the stereo when you're asleep.

      Just an example.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    16. Re:To Serve Man by -O.ster_66 · · Score: 1
      by the same token, we could be THE ultimate beings of the universe. how sad would THAT be?

      --
      "You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention...science has it all."
    17. Re:To Serve Man by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Nah, they wouldn't want an uppity human for a slave. We need food, water, oxygen, are easily bored, and generally are a pain in the ass. Then again maybe robots will get just as uppity once they're intelligent enough.

    18. Re:To Serve Man by douthat · · Score: 1

      "To Serve Man" is also the name of a classic episode of The Twilight Zone where some Big -Headed Aliens "arrive on Earth, and immediately start helping man. They appear totally trustworthy and full of goodwill. This idea is backed up when they leave a book titled "To Serve Man" at the U.N. Michael Chambers, a decoding expert, along with thousands of other people book passage to the Kanamit's home panet. Meanwhile, Michael's assistant Pat is trying to decode the book left by the Kanamits. As Michael is boarding the Kanamit spacecraft, Pat runs up and tells Michael she has finished translating the book - it's a cookbook! Michael tries to escape, but is forced back inside by a Kanamit, and the craft leaves."

      --
      She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF ...
    19. Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those of us who learned everything we know about the Twilight Zone from the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror he's refering to the short "Hungry Are the Damned" from this epsiode.

    20. Re:To Serve Man by operagost · · Score: 1

      Hardly - I don't think humans taste very good at all.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:To Serve Man by operagost · · Score: 1

      Pay attention - that's exactly what he linked to!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:To Serve Man by douthat · · Score: 1

      As I was hitting submit, I was reading the last half of his comment and whacked myself in the face a few times just for good measure. RTFC, I guess..

      --
      She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF ...
    23. Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm...that would explain a lot.

    24. Re:To Serve Man by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Hardly - I don't think humans taste very good at all."

      Tell that to the German cannibal currently on trial...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    25. Re:To Serve Man by syukton · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying...we cook ourselves.

      What food have you had lately that beheld that convenience?

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    26. Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

  3. Yeah right.... by mcg1969 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and monkeys will start walking erect, too.
    Oh, wait.

    1. Re:Yeah right.... by Merlin_1102 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      They already have started walking on two feet We are one step closer now I guess

    2. Re:Yeah right.... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Funny



      So now the monkeys are getting V1AG.RA spam, too?

    3. Re:Yeah right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *rolls eyes*

    4. Re:Yeah right.... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone who has watched Steve Balmer dance ...MUST believe in aliens...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    5. Re:Yeah right.... by joke+explainer · · Score: 1

      Thanks for ruining the joke, dumbnuts. -joke explainer

    6. Re:Yeah right.... by BaldGhoti · · Score: 1

      ...speaking of monkeys walking erect...

      --
      [insert witty sig here]
    7. Re:Yeah right.... by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Umm, that's not something I really want to think about...

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    8. Re:Yeah right.... by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      yeah, Steve Ballmer is no Al Gore when it comes to cutting a rug.

    9. Re:Yeah right.... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      Maybe not aliens, but definitely upright monkeys...

    10. Re:Yeah right.... by cynic10508 · · Score: 1

      ...and monkeys will start walking erect, too.

      So that means the giant black obelisk in my neighborhood isn't really a street sign put in place overnight?

    11. Re:Yeah right.... by mcg1969 · · Score: 1

      Yippee! Someone posted a comment that I happen to have a relevant response for! He made a joke about monkeys walking erect and I happen to know that just such a thing has been all over the news lately!
      Oh, wait...

    12. Re:Yeah right.... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Erect Monkeys? With Viagra? Hmmm. Pretty "spunky monkey" or is that "funky monkey"? Or, "chunky monkey"?

      Change Viagra (Niagara) to Killagra (Killimanjaro), or Tanzagra (Tanzania)

      I guess when they become ChimpoNauts, they'll we "hairy and wary"...

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    13. Re:Yeah right.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > So that means the giant black obelisk in my neighborhood

      Hmm... If that happens, I wonder if the community will attempt to sue the cosmos under zoning laws or planned community BS...

      Just another stupid idea, brought to you via /.

    14. Re:Yeah right.... by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      Anyone who has watched Steve Balmer dance ...MUST believe in aliens...
      and in monkeys walking erect.
    15. Re:Yeah right.... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      What? now they are giving Balmer v1agra?

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    16. Re:Yeah right.... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      They never have walked erect. Don't confuse your species.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    17. Re:Yeah right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't read Slashdot much, do you?

    18. Re:Yeah right.... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Actually I do read it a lot which is why the original comment didn't surprise me one bit.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  4. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How good are they at Counter Strike.

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

      Never mind, the lag to their server is horrible. I am still waiting to see what happens to the first bullet I fired back in 99.

    2. Re:And... by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      there will probably be enough lag for it no to matter. Ping: Reply from cs.otherplanet.gx: bytes=32 time=114yrs TTL=31536000000

  5. I predict... by MoxCamel · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...we'll intercept their communications, and then some alien lawyers will serve earth with a big-ass lawsuit, for illegally downloading bootleg copies of "Frobzug and the Gleems." This will be a huge cosmic joke, because Frobzug and the Gleems are like, so totally ten million years ago, and anyway you can pick their albums up in the ten-blork bins. Part of the agreement will be that we agree to "uninstall" our illegal SETI programs, and promise to never download illegal communications again. The Sub-Etha net community will, of course, be outraged that the [unpronouncable high-pitched wheezing noise] industry is picking on a planet that's only 4.5 billion years old.

    I could be wrong.

    1. Re:I predict... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      THe problem is that Earth is guilty of violating the PECA:

      Positronic Eon Copyright Act

      Unfortunately, we only have observers in the Galactic Senate with no voting rights, and they're all farmers abducted from the 1950's and wouldn't understand the intricacies of Galactic Law.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:I predict... by smatt-man · · Score: 0

      Does that redefine the term P2P network - Planet to Planet network?

      --

      ---
      Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
    3. Re:I predict... by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Actually, our observers have recently returned to Earth.

    4. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Go here to read a story about just that. It turns out that everything we humans have ever done from making fire to shaping stone tools, has been covered by inter-galactic patent law for quite some time. The best part is, the aliens aren't mad, they just want us to pay them for licensing.

    5. Re:I predict... by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      ...that the future company of MicroSCOft will claim they have a patent on "Frobzub and the Gleems" and own the source code.

      The aliens will determine that a lawsuit isn't worth their time and will instead demolish our planet to make way for a hyperspace bypass.

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    6. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And somehow, the lawsuits will still be served by the RIAA.

    7. Re:I predict... by Markzilla · · Score: 1, Funny

      What if our reply gets trashed by their advanced Spam filters?

    8. Re:I predict... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      ....I predict those lawyers will claim their client holds the patent to "life" and that we should either pay up or die.

  6. ET by kob43 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've seen it at least 10 times since it's first release. I'm starting to get sick of Elliot's whinning.

    --


    Kiss my bass.
  7. Except... by bs_testability · · Score: 0

    It would really complicate matters if they don't have the technology to generate emag signals.

    1. Re:Except... by BlueStraggler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That simplifies things, acually, since by definition you aren't searching for them.

      What complicates matters is the assumption that a technological civilization that has this technology is still primitive enough to pump out massive amounts of EM radiation in all directions to communicate with other individuals around them.

      Even here on primitive ol' Earth we can see where EM communication is going... directed beam, spread-spectrum, low-power wireless mesh, encrypted (ie. reandom-looking) digital, and that's all a mere 100 years or so into this radio thing. How many of the 10K-1M civilizations out there do we hope to accidentally catch in this tiny window of radio naivete? And since it will take 100-1000 years to send a message back, does anyone seriously think they'll still be listening attentively to their little alien vacuum tube sets when it gets there?

  8. Just one problem. by SeaDour · · Score: 3, Funny

    This calculation doesn't include the number of people turned off from the SETI@Home project by the new BOINC software.

    1. Re:Just one problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      they are beta tesing BOINC. name one beta test that's gone smoothly. exactally.

      BOINC is much faster and more effient, can support multiple dist. computing projects as well.
      a seti workunit used to take about 7:35:00 on my comptuer at work, and now it's under 4:30:00. thats a pretty big improvement.

    2. Re:Just one problem. by ld_hrothgar · · Score: 0

      Yeah, great... now if I'd just quit getting "Deferring communication with project for 6 days, 22 hours, 49 minutes, and 37 seconds". I have 6 work units ready to return and I can't get them back because the server won't talk to me.

    3. Re:Just one problem. by jmays · · Score: 1

      BOINC is superior to the previous SETI client. Once things get settled in start running smoothly... BOINC will out calculate the previous client.

      Plus, how much of hassle is the new BOINC software? Is it that hard to let it sit and run? It auto-corrects so even if you have errors because something happened server side ... the client will check back later on a semi-standard but self-adjusting interval?

      Who is getting turned off and why? Do you miss you pretty screen saver?

      --
      KARMA TAG! You're it.
    4. Re:Just one problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I thought the screen saver was the point. You mean it was doing something else too?

  9. IN PLANET EARTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ET finds YOU!

    1. Re:IN PLANET EARTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe thats: ET phones home

    2. Re:IN PLANET EARTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are so fucking stupid

  10. Within 20 years? by indros · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is 2004, right? Wouldn't that set the date to 2024?

    1. Re:Within 20 years? by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

      SETI lag time remember? It took 4 years to ge to /.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  11. Problems by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there's the question of can we decode their signals, would they spot our reply, and what's the lag time

    And is their primary goal "To Serve Mankind?"...

    1. Re:Problems by dlosey · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling we will be "served" alright. I'm just glad I wont be around by the time this all happens.

      I can see the alien race now:
      "Hmm.. Kinda tastes like chicken"

    2. Re:Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ..on a platter. With mushrooms, and perhaps with a nice side of granite crunchies.

    3. Re:Problems by Bob+McCown · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and a fine chianti.

    4. Re:Problems by Pegasus377 · · Score: 1

      with Ketchup...

    5. Re:Problems by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular belief, "To Serve Mankind" is not about cooking. It's about break dancing.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    6. Re:Problems by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      ...slirp-slirp-slirp-slirp-slirp....

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  12. 2020 eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    2020, just in time to send my first and brightest to Battle School.

    1. Re:2020 eh? by tbfmicke · · Score: 1

      No, its the third you should send there.
      The first is a bit too aggressive :-)

  13. My Crystal Ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And SETI predicts a healthy funding increase owing to this PR stunt.

  14. Hate to tell ya, dudes... by halivar · · Score: 2, Funny

    We're already here.

    1. Re:Hate to tell ya, dudes... by Zaranne · · Score: 1

      Hey, I was gonna say that...

      And for the LAST time, we do NOT abduct people. No one around interesting enough yet, though Elvis did seem pretty cool. Til he got fat.

      --
      So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
    2. Re:Hate to tell ya, dudes... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      Too right.

      But we're too cunning to be discovered.

    3. Re:Hate to tell ya, dudes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      figures, only an alien would think Elvis was cool before he got fat...

    4. Re:Hate to tell ya, dudes... by Zaranne · · Score: 1

      Well, it's all that sweat pouring off his forehead that turns us off. We prefer the kind of sweat involved with sex, not bright lights. Unless it's a porno in the making...

      --
      So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
    5. Re:Hate to tell ya, dudes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we don't abduct people, but everything you've heard about anal-probing is true. We get off on that stuff...

    6. Re:Hate to tell ya, dudes... by Zaranne · · Score: 1

      I did mention making porno films earlier...

      --
      So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
  15. Forget it... by artemis67 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The green alien babes don't want you, either...

    1. Re:Forget it... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      yeah, we could never get a hot chick like Morvoe's wife.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Forget it... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Fine but I call dibs onher.

    3. Re:Forget it... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Leela is a swer mutant as revealed in the episode Leela's Homeworld, part of the 4th Season which was sadly the last full season.

    4. Re:Forget it... by Mudcathi · · Score: 1
      Not to mention the green alien blobs...

      --

      "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

    5. Re:Forget it... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      they are coming back. I think they will have a new season soon.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:Forget it... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I've heard rumors do you have any links to anything confirmed!?!?!

  16. What's to say... by Throtex · · Score: 1

    ... they don't find us first?

    1. Re:What's to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's to say they don't find us first?

      That's easy, they're intelligent beings aren't they?

    2. Re:What's to say... by freqres · · Score: 1

      Maybe they already have. Why is everyone talking into their wristwatch?

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
  17. Do we really want to meet aliens? by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

    The more important question is, will they be friendly?

    --
    "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    1. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by foidulus · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think an even more important question for them is what side dishes go well with human?

    2. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by L.+VeGas · · Score: 1

      The more important question is, will they be friendly?

      No, the more important question is, what will they taste like?

    3. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      I don't know for sure, but fava beans and a nice chianti seems to work.

    4. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by pinchhazard · · Score: 1

      I think an even more important question for them is what side dishes go well with human?

      Man is delicious; Marsh-wiggle requires somewhat more dressing to be palatable.

      --
      Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
    5. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0, Funny

      Man, imagine if they evolved from lobsters...mmmmmm....6ft tall lobsters.

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
    6. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1

      What makes you think we won't BE the side-dish. Kind of an ego trip to assume we'd be the ENTREE.

    7. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      The more important question is, will they be friendly?

      Naw, the important question is "do they exist?"

      If there's ETs out there, that means that all the eggs aren't necessarily in our basket. That'd make me feel a little better about the future of life in general.

      -PS

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    8. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by core+plexus · · Score: 1
      To the best of my knowledge, I've never eaten human, but I have eaten bear. How is this relevant? Because the first time I skinned a black bear, I was suprised. Sans skin, head, and paws, it looks a lot like a human out of Grays Anatomy.

      -cp-

      In Nome, Women More Precious than Gold

    9. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong, the important question is have they ever had hot grits poured down their pants...

    10. Re:Do we really want to meet aliens? by foidulus · · Score: 1

      Then you may be one of the ones spared and made head chef.
      You and Iron Chef Sakai of course.

  18. Meeting... by solive1 · · Score: 1

    Of course, if we ever find these ETs, at the rate Congress is cutting NASA's budget, we'll never be able to meet up with them unless they come to us.

  19. Except Moore's law is already close to breaking by macklin01 · · Score: 1

    Shostak assumed that computer processing power will continue to double every 18 months until 2015- as it has done for the past 40 years. From then on, he assumes a more conservative doubling time of 36 months as transistors get too small to scale down as easily as they have till now.

    As has been seen with 65nm Prescotts and difficulties with die shrinks to this size by IBM and AMD as well, we may already be at or near the point that they had assumed for 2015.

    --
    OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
  20. Ping by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 1, Funny

    Pinging aliens with 32 bytes of data:

    Ping statistics for aliens:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 148 years, Maximum = 163 years, Average = 156 years

    C:\Documents and Settings\Valentine Johnson>

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Ping by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Wish I could get uptime like that on my boxes.

    2. Re:Ping by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      The joke would have been more effective if you had actually used milliseconds:

      Pinging aliens with 32 bytes of data:

      Ping statistics for aliens:
      Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
      Minimum = 4667328853423, Maximum = 4997329136475, Average = 4997328994949

    3. Re:Ping by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      Argghhhhhh! I got the numbers wrong! Must...wash...hands!!! 1...2...3...4...5...

  21. Deadline! by mfh · · Score: 2, Funny

    SETI says 2020, so now we have a new Internet deadline to watch. I bet they strike gold next year sometime or the year after. And when they do, I bet the Aliens look like giant chickens and they kick our asses for KFC.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Deadline! by freqres · · Score: 1

      Or KFC profits soar after discovering a race of giant chickens.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    2. Re:Deadline! by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Whatever the aliens look like, I bet they taste like chicken.

  22. I wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they use linux?

  23. Better wording by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Informative

    A misleading article summary on /.? I'm shocked and appalled!

    A better way to state this story is that within 20 years, SETI will have the capacity to detect transmissions from across our galaxy, rather than just a small slice of it. Whether or not there's any signal to pick up is another matter entirely...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:Better wording by suso · · Score: 1

      There is a STTNG episode "The Chase" where they discover the prior existance of beings from 5 billion years ago who they themselves found that there was no other life in their galaxy at the time.

      That episode has always made me wonder if we could be in the same predicament. It could be that we're just "first". I'm sure that it would be wishful thinking for some people, but I would find it unfortunate.

    2. Re:Better wording by laigle · · Score: 1

      I think we're better off with the small slice for practical purposes. What if we did detect signals from a million light years out? Those signals have no current relevance, and there's no way we could hope to give a meaningful reply.

    3. Re:Better wording by dragonp12 · · Score: 1

      "First", or possibly more likely "after everything else has died off".

      --
      This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
    4. Re:Better wording by me98411 · · Score: 1

      A misleading article summary on /.? I'm shocked and appalled!

      You are new here, aren't you? Oops, look at that 5-digit account number...:)

    5. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you misread it... the SETI people are HUGE trek fans and they are waiting for the Vulcans to land by then.

      what? star-trek are not historical documents????

      HERESY!!!

    6. Re:Better wording by suso · · Score: 1

      Good point, that could definately be true as well. In that case, we would at least find some archeological goodies.

    7. Re:Better wording by dragonp12 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, yes. But that would involve getting to their planet, which could take a while. Assuming that they didn't leave easily detectable space garbage of course, but even then we'd be wanting to get closer.

      And anyway, in another few million years how much will remain as proof of the existence of dinosaurs? Not a whole lot, probably. So in theory, a short time (relative to the age of the universe) after a civilisation dies off there could be little or no evidence left that they ever existed!

      --
      This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
    8. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Contact: "If we're alone in the universe, then it seems like an awful big waste of space."

    9. Re:Better wording by orac2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      David Brin has a rather lovely little story in his collection "The River of Time." that tackles this: Human beings have been exploring the galaxy, but finding hardly any habitable worlds and no sign of anyone else to talk to. Then they find an artifact, which contains the coordinates of a bunch of other habitable planets. What's been happening is that the universe is still too young for there to be more than one space-faring race around at a time. So the first race to realise their predicament left artifacts with pointers on all its planets for the next race that would eventually come along, and so on. Also included is the coordinates of a particular black hole; when each species gets bored of kicking around with no one to talk to, it departs for a near-event horizon orbit around the black hole, where it waits, along with the other early races, for the galaxy to fill up with interesting people.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    10. Re:Better wording by SkyLeach · · Score: 1

      Setting aside that even giving credence to the pseudo-theory that "what can happen will happen" could have allotted for the improbable evolution of humanity the likelyhood of the evolution of even a second carbon-baed life form anywhere in the galaxy is simply ludicrous.

      Every science we have shows that the accidental appearance of mankind on earth is as close to a statistical impossibility as the science of statistics allows. In addition, the suggestions that we may come into contact with non-carbon lifeforms is even more improbable.

      So, if against all odds we did evolve, spending money on SETI to search the heavens for the off chance that someone or something else did as well is most like betting millions on the most rediculous lottery ever concieved, one we are sure to loose, no matter how many tickets we buy.

      --
      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    11. Re:Better wording by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
      So in theory, a short time (relative to the age of the universe) after a civilisation dies off there could be little or no evidence left that they ever existed!

      That kinda depends... if they got to the space-faring level, we'd probably find all kinds of stuff (again, once we got there) - Barring a well-placed meteorite impact, I'm pretty sure most of lower unit of the lunar module would still be there for a long, long time.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    12. Re:Better wording by dragonp12 · · Score: 1

      For a "long, long time", yes, but in a hundred million years? Supposedly not.

      But who's to say that they'll have the same fascination with the circular bit of cheese in the sky that we do? :-P

      --
      This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
    13. Re:Better wording by cft_128 · · Score: 1

      Now how long until my 6 digit account number garners that type of respect? Probably around the same time we detect aliens.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    14. Re:Better wording by cowscows · · Score: 1

      How can science really yet show that the evolution of humanity is a statistical fluke? Are you talking about the development of intelligence? I don't think science has anywhere near a good enough understanding of how intelligence actually works to declare that it's practically a statistical impossibility. Not to mention that you're talking about a universe of immense size, and processes that occur over millions and even billions of years. I don't think anyone has come up with any sort of experiment that can come close to touching those parameters, so it's hard to test. Anything else is just a fairly wild speculation.

      Now the chances of finding intelligent life around a star close enough to have meaningful communication, astronomers can probably give more accurate predictions about that, and the numbers don't seem to be good.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    15. Re:Better wording by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's what will happen anyway, though. Once we do find someone, it's likely they'll be so far away that meaningful asynchronous communication would be too burdensome.

    16. Re:Better wording by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      You'll probably have to wait for all the double digit people to die off.... are you young? Cause if you're not you don't have a chance... lol

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    17. Re:Better wording by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how science approaches this situation. Years of scientific progress has shown that if a scientific model predicts a very slim chance of something happening, when it did in fact happen, then that's evidence that the model is flawed, not that the event was unlikely. The fact that science shows lifes evolution on earth to be a fluke implies that science doesn't yet know much (if anything) about this process, not that this process is in itself a statistical abnormality.

      Besides, if you don't look you'll never know.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    18. Re:Better wording by SkyLeach · · Score: 0, Troll

      I will attempt give you some hard numbers taken from "Reasons To Believe".

      You must remember that the evolution of intelligence is hardly the most daunting fascit of evoluion. First, you must overcome other problems. Let's start with the environment itself.

      Probability of a Life Support Body

      As you can see from this compilation and the references included it's highly improbable to get a planet within the required range of suitability for anything close to carbon-based life forms.

      Then, assuming we get past that improbability, life must spontaneously appear from non-life. This is more complicated than you may have been led to believe in school. Just some of the problems are outlined in these articles...

      The suggestion that early life was extreamophiles has been pretty well rebuffed here. The theory of a virus being the source of life is unlikely. Then there is the argument that life started far less complex than a modern cell. Sudies have shown that the cell is of irreduceable complexity.

      I'd like to think I am not close-minded to other arguments in the search for the origin of life. If you have other statistics, reports or papers please do post and I will be happy to read over them.

      The thing I keep finding again and again is that evolution requires far more faith than religion. I do not hide that I am a believer, but I must wonder what the motives may be fore an athiest to so vehemenently deny the clear facts. If I am wrong and there is no God then that does not make the probability that we evolved any less unlikely. Putting aside questions of faith, arguments about morality and anger over the injustices of organized religion evolution simply does not make much sense!

      Here is the kicker: I fall closer to the camp of C.S. Lewis than of staunch protestantism. I believe there is every possibility that ET life could exist, but I do not believe in evolution. I do believe that if indeed the Creator has created other worlds than the earth, it would probably be outside his design to allow interaction with them. Every evidence of the designs of God upon the earth suggests that this is a boot-camp for life, not a pleasure planet. We aren't here to see how far we can explore into space (tower of Babel and all that) but rather to see how far we as a people will digress morally and how far we as individuals may progress spiritually.

      When the meaning of life is argued as one of individual spiritual growth and understanding instead of popular civil evolution and technical advancement the questions of the origin of life seem to make a great deal more logical sense.

      --
      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    19. Re:Better wording by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      ---
      How can science really yet show that the evolution of humanity is a statistical fluke?
      ---

      Easy. Take a look at the odds of RNA forming via abiogenesis. The odds are ridiculously low. And just to forestall the inevitable arguments, these probabilities are created by examing the chances of formation for the various molecules involved. It's not guesswork.

      Evolution can't start until you've got replicating systems that carry information. Looking at the chemistry involved for that to happen, calling life on Earth a statistical fluke is warranted.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    20. Re:Better wording by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Carl Segan believed that there was definately other life out there, but that the odds of finding eachother was incredibly small. The vastness of both space and time may make it unlikely.

      Imagine two random grains of sand on the beach. Imagine those two grains could exist at any time in the history of the beach. What would the odds be that these two grains would be near enough to eachother in both space and time to find eachother?

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    21. Re:Better wording by SkyLeach · · Score: 1

      Please clairify your statement. Are you suggesting the scientific model is wrong, that statistical science is wrong, or that our observations are wrong?

      Statistical science is about raw probability that events occoured according to a theory. If they show that something is unlikely then you can be sure that either the data used in the prediction was flawed, the calculation of the statistics was flawed, or that the theory was flawed. If errors are found in the data gathered or the results of its annalysis then there was likely a flaw in the execution of the scientific method, not in the method itself. Failing that, the scientific method itself says that you must question the theory.

      "when it did in fact happen" is a statement of unequivocable faith. You are basing your argument on the unscientific position that your theory is fact rather than a theory. Your only facts in this argument is that life does exist and that the laws of physics must be assumed to be inflexible unless some evidence can be produced or observation made which shows otherwise. Therefore you must discard the statement that "it did in fact happen" is unscientific and any suppositions based on that statement and proceed from that point.

      As you can see, it is not myself but you who musunderstood how science approaches this situation.

      --
      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    22. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a tool

    23. Re:Better wording by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      You creationists take the few sandgrains of "prrof" that evolution doesn't occur and try to topple a mountain of prrof that it does. I ask you this.. How does a virus mutate and become resistant to medications? EVOLUTION! Haven't you ever had more than one flu shot?

      And as far as finding alien radio transmissions, I don't expect to find them in my lifetime.. and I've got a good 60 to 70 years left in me. But hopefully I'm wrong. As such, I run the SETI@Home client.

    24. Re:Better wording by Saige · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is so incredibly improbable that life came into existence on it's own, and therefore must be created, this brings up another question.

      If we're too complex to have occured on our own, thus requiring a creator, must not that creator be much more complex, and thus even more unlikely to exist? To follow the same logic, you end up with an infinite regress of creators, with one at the end that is both infinitely complex and infinitely unlikely to exist on it's own (which can also be called impossible).

      Why do you give that more complex being a pass to exist no matter how unlikely it is, but yet not do the same for the more likely to occur life that obviously exists on this planet?

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    25. Re:Better wording by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      That episode was simply insane. It was meant to explain why every species in the Star Trek galaxy looked like humans with some forehead bumps, but the chances of species evolving so similarly, even with identical "seed" material, are astronomically small.

    26. Re:Better wording by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      He has faith. He has faith that his faith is the one true faith in the only correct faith that his faith is the correct faith.. ad infinium

      In my years of study and ponderance on the existence of any sort of god, I feel that religion is simply the blind leading the blind. Worse yet, it's all based on fantasy and a simple desire for there to be more. Well, sorry.. but there is no evidence that there's anything passed death. And don't give me any fantastical "evidence" either.

    27. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a waste of space. Just an nearly infinite amount of resources for humanity to continue to consume.

    28. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually us "creationists" as you accuse us, are simply waiting for the scientific proof of macro-evolution. True that micro-evolution has been proven, but there is no proof yet of the "conversion" of one species into another.

      The fossil record is clearly disappointing in this regards, clearly showing all the major phila appeared around 500 million years ago within an extremely short period. The THEORY of evolution predicts an even distribution of changes, where there should be many intermediate forms. However, these intermediate forms are nowhere to be found.

      Darwin himself said that if any irriducibly complex biological structures were found, it would totally disprove his theories. However even after many, many discoveries of these irriducibly complex systems (DNA organization, RNA production, ribosomes, flagellums, bombarder beetle glands, human eyes, ...) have been identified, evolutionists stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA, LA, LA" to themselves.

      Religious people are blasted for their reglious dogma of "blindly" following their religion, but nothing compares to the blind dogma of evolution proponents. If evolutionary theory were true, then the deeper we dig in biology, the more facts should appear supporting the theory. But the opposite is true. The deeper we dig, the more complex life shows itself to be... which goes against what evolutionary theory predicts.

    29. Re:Better wording by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Also included is the coordinates of a particular black hole; when each species gets bored of kicking around with no one to talk to, it departs for a near-event horizon orbit around the black hole, where it waits, along with the other early races, for the galaxy to fill up with interesting people.

      This is actually a pretty choice piece of real-estate. If you're close enough to the hole, you can draw power from either the microwave background or (later) the hole, until an incredibly distant time in the future (long after all other sources of power have been exhausted).

      I'm going to have to look up that David Brin anthology :).

    30. Re:Better wording by Troed · · Score: 1

      The THEORY of evolution predicts an even distribution of changes

      No.

      BTW - the best way to show that you are a creationist without any clues is to discredit evolution as being a "THEORY". I think you need to check up on what a theory is in the scientific world.

    31. Re:Better wording by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So then you have to wonder, what caused the abiogenesis on earth? And what's stopping it from happening on other planets?

    32. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like betting millions on the most rediculous lottery ever concieved, one we are sure to loose, no matter how many tickets we buy

      sure to loose? man, we should start to make it more tight then! you're such a loser!

    33. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really should be ashamed of yourself for quoting that fucking horrible movie...

    34. Re:Better wording by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      You are looking at the problem backward. You seem to be thinking, "Wow, look at the exact parameters needed to support earth's life - how rare is that! The chance of that occurring again elsewhere is nearly nil." The problem is that we aren't looking for EARTH life. We're just looking for any life. It doesn't even have to be carbon based. The reason earth life is so specific to only work in earth's environment is because earth is where it evolved. Life that evolvled elsewhere would have a completely different biology altogether. In fact the only thing that would make us recognize it as life would be in the patterns of the motion of objects seeming to have some sense to them.


      The thing I keep finding again and again is that evolution requires far more faith than religion.

      Evolution is not incompatable with religion. Your argument has been about the initial generation of life. Evolution is about what happens once life gets going, not about how it got started in the first place.


      athiest to so vehemenently deny the clear facts.

      What are these allegedly "clear" facts that you think atheists are denying?

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    35. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If they show that something is unlikely then you can be sure that either the data used in the prediction was flawed, the calculation of the statistics was flawed, or that the theory was flawed."

      It is also a possibility that the underlying statistical method is flawed as well. Scientific results are best guesses based on commonly accepted interpretations of available information.

      "If errors are found in the data gathered or the results of its annalysis then there was likely a flaw in the execution of the scientific method, not in the method itself."

      What was it you said about taking the position that your theory is fact?

    36. Re:Better wording by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Nothing "caused" abiogenesis, unless you're talking a form of intelligent design.

      From a purely naturalistic point of view, you'd have to make the argument that the odds are that abiogenesis has occurred only once in the entire universe and we're it.

      Or, if that bothers you, it occurred once in the entire universe, and has been transplanted from world to world through space. All it would take are some bacterial spores.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    37. Re:Better wording by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      "when it did in fact happen" is a statement of unequivocable faith

      No shit, lol, weren't paying much attention were you :p. I have unequivocal faith that humans do exist and that life did evolve on this earth. Don't you?

      I'm saying that if the theory shows that the probability of that happening is slim (when it obviously did, cause... y'know... me and you are sitting here typing and all....) then chances are there is something wrong with the theory.

      Take for example the big bang theory. Mathematically is was sound, it's possible that things happened that way. But it required very specific conditions in the initial universe to arrive at the state of the current universe. Those conditions had to be so finely tuned that the theory in suggested that it was very unlikely that the universe would have unfolded as we see it today. But obviously the universe did unfold as we see it today. So the big bang theory was modified into inflationary cosmology which explained the universe just as accurately, and did not require the fine tuning thus did not imply a statistical abnormality in the current universe as we see it.

      Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that it was actually very unlikely for life to evolve, it's just that we don't understand the process as it affected us and have not been able to observe it in another location. So to someone who doesn't get the idea of scientific progression it would seem like life is unlikely, but chances are much greater that we just don't understand it yet.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    38. Re:Better wording by derdesh · · Score: 1

      The story is "The Crystal Spheres" and it won the Hugo award for Best Short Story in 1985.

    39. Re:Better wording by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "David Brin has a rather lovely little story in his collection "The River of Time." that tackles this: Human beings have been exploring the galaxy, but finding hardly any habitable worlds and no sign of anyone else to talk to. Then they find an artifact, which contains the coordinates of a bunch of other habitable planets."

      Sounds like that TNG episode where all the major races of the Trek universe detected that signal that turned out to be from an ancient humanoid race who seeded the galaxy with the building blocks to create multitudes of humanoid races. The ancient beings had done so because they were sterile and didn't want the universe to be empty, or something like that. But why did they have to seed the planet Skaro? Oh, the humanoidity...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    40. Re:Better wording by SkyLeach · · Score: 0

      Looking at the responses to my post and the "troll" mod point I can see it's quite pointless to post anything meaningfull here but since you seem to be the only one who actually read my post and you are asking real (if shallow) questions I'll dignify you with an honest response

      I did not say that Evolution was incompatable with religion, I said it requires more faith. There is a subtle but important difference. Evolution is persented to the world as a scientific theory born of a naturalistic desire to explain the origin of species and not as a religious doctrine. As such, it should be examined and studied like any other theory. It should be tested and either proven or disproven. The difference between this theory and most others is that dispite continuous evidence that macro evolution does not occour in nature and that life follows a tendancy towards extinction and degeneration not self-improvement this theory continues to be fostered on the world as fact. There is hasn't been a single fossile record recovered that shows reasonable evidence of macro evolution. For this reason I say that evolution is a belief (a faith) that flies in the face of fact.

      If you want proof that athiests deny the facts, read some of these posts. Those that read my posts, ignore the points I have made and merely rant, most didn't even read my posts. I have found that most athiests are vehemenently angry with established religion and fuel their arguments with this anger rather than relying on reason or logic. No sane person can claim that the evidence is in favor of evolution as the origin of our species. No theory can come remotely close to showing a reasonable explanation for our existance on this planet. The purpose of my arguments are not to argue for religion but to argue against evolution, yet the oposition to my arguments and the emotion presented in that oposition makes my point for me: evolution is not supported because it is sound, but rather because it is not religion.

      I challenge anyone who reads this post to present reasonable evidence that humanity can expect SETI to find ET life based on any theory other than Creation. I can make this challenge because it is impossible. There is no such evidence to be had.

      There is only hope, and hope is merely Faith without roots.

      --
      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    41. Re: Better wording by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > > How can science really yet show that the evolution of humanity is a statistical fluke?

      > Easy. Take a look at the odds of RNA forming via abiogenesis. The odds are ridiculously low.

      How can you possibly calculate the odds of something happening when you don't know the details of what caused it or how it happened?

      > And just to forestall the inevitable arguments, these probabilities are created by examing the chances of formation for the various molecules involved. It's not guesswork.

      No, it's bullshit. The way creationists calculate these probabilities is to assume that the identity of each base in a strand of DNA is the result of an independent random draw. If we analyze everything on the basis of that kind of assumption, we should be utterly astonished that we always get H2O and NaCL when we mix HCl and NaOH, or that apples always fall in directions that all converge at the center of the earth, or that there is a correlation between distance from earth and redness, etc.

      Mechanism is everything. Using irrelevant statistical calculations (which you haven't actually offered, BTW) to show that something didn't happen is absurd.

      > Evolution can't start until you've got replicating systems that carry information.

      What is 'information', in this context?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    42. Re: Better wording by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Every science we have shows that the accidental appearance of mankind on earth is as close to a statistical impossibility as the science of statistics allows.

      Please pick three of those sciences, and show the statistical calculations they offer in support of your claim.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    43. Re:Better wording by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "So, if against all odds we did evolve, spending money on SETI to search the heavens for the off chance that someone or something else did as well is most like betting millions on the most rediculous lottery ever concieved, one we are sure to loose, no matter how many tickets we buy."

      Don't use Slashdot as a platform to "dis" lotteries. Voltaire won the Paris lottery, and I'd be willing to bet (pun intended) that that chap was a lot more wise than you, sir. And one of those Founding Fathers of ours, Jefferson, referred to them [lotteries] as the "fairest tax of them all."

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    44. Re:Better wording by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      As such, it should be examined and studied like any other theory.

      It's a good thing then that it *IS*.


      dispite continuous evidence that macro evolution does not occour in nature

      There can be no such thing as evidence that a thing doesn't occur - only a lack of evidence that it *does* occur.


      There is hasn't been a single fossile record recovered that shows reasonable evidence of macro evolution.

      True. Because it's ALL of them taken together that do, not a "single" one taken in isolation.


      If you want proof that athiests deny the facts, read some of these posts.

      You are beyond hope. I stopped reading at this point.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    45. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just to forestall the inevitable arguments, these probabilities are created by examing the chances of formation for the various molecules involved. It's not guesswork.

      Please, feel free to detail these probability calculations. Every time creationists attempt this whole, "the chances of abiogenesis are incredibly low" schtick, it turns out that they blatantly misunderstand chemistry. So please, tell us about the chances of formation for the various molecules involved, the mechanisms behind the formation of RNA from these molecules, the assumptions you're making regarding the environment at the time, and so on, and based on that, we should be able to check the final probability calculation.

    46. Re:Better wording by EdwardElric · · Score: 1

      "when it did in fact happen" is a statement of unequivocable faith.

      The early universe would not support life as we know it. Today there is life. I think I'm justified in saying that abiogenesis happened, no faith required.

      You are basing your argument on the unscientific position that your theory is fact rather than a theory.

      When will creationists start learning some science before they arrogantly assume they know more than every biologist put together? A theory is not just some guess that scientists came up with while drunk one night. A theory is an explanatory network with predictive power. Successful theories, such as evolution, atomic theory, or relativity, become successful only when their predictions consistently pan out.

      As you can see, it is not myself but you who musunderstood how science approaches this situation.

      Sure you do, Mr. "Evolution takes faith."

    47. Re:Better wording by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      By whatever random twist of fate, earth became a suitable planet for life, and life showed up on earth pretty early on (ie, it didn't take long for life to appear once the environment was suited for it). Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be exactly right, but it happened once, so it can happen again.

      The only way that you can argue that it'll never happen again anywhere else is by intelligent design (it happened only once because god only did it once, and he's not going to do it again), but I don't buy that. By a random fluke, everything came together for earth and life appeared. The same thing will happen elsewhere.

    48. Re:Better wording by orac2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's one of my favorite anthologies of all time (which is ironic since apart from it and "The Postman", Brin's stuff leaves me cold and I love both of those books for their pitch perfect emotional impact). It's called the "River of Time": several of the stories inside are worth the cover price alone.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    49. Re:Better wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps it happens rather frequently!

      link

    50. Re:Better wording by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1
      If you want proof that athiests deny the facts, read some of these posts.

      Us 'atheists' (although I prefer to be termed agnostic, as it's more appropriate in my case) don't deny a damn thing.

      Unlike you 'fundies' (doncha just love labels?), we don't operate primarily from a book written thousands of years ago (itself without a scrap of provenance), but careful study and re-examination. We agree with you that there are certain holes and flaws in evolutionary theory (and sometimes even in the scientific process itself), and still cannot answer many important questions fully. But 'we' will always keep asking questions while 'you' will forever be anchored and limited by your beliefs.

      This isn't about hope and faith. It's about truth. Whether it leads to the creator or away from him, I could not care less. What I do care about is keeping my mind open.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  24. They already found me... by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure ET has already found me. At least, that's what the grey midget sticking the cattle prod up my ass while covering me in slimy Saran Wrap told me through my mind the other night when I was snatched out of bed via a beam of light.

    Wait -- never mind -- that was Tequila talking after some really bad Mexican food. No wonder my ass hurts. Damn that Mexican midget waitress!

    IronChefMorimoto

  25. Lag time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course once we find the first aliens there's the question of can we decode their signals, would they spot our reply, and what's the lag time.

    and whether they've got the latest levels.

  26. Prediction, or Guess? by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
    I remember reading about Drake equation, and the reasoning behind it looks valid. But if I remember correctly, the results vary wildly depending on what you pick for some of the variables. The equation can "predict" life on every other planet, or it can predict that Earth is the only Big Blue Marble in the game.

    I guess I'll go read that fine article now. :)

    --
    Anonymous Kev
    Proudly posting as AC since 1997
    (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    1. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Yes, depending on what you use for your variables, the Drake Eq can spit out very different results. But it's hard to get it to say that Earth is the only place where there's life in the universe- ok, not hard, but the numbers you have to use are really huge and really, really tiny (depending on the variable) to yield only 1, values outside our best estimates.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    2. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
      Now that I've posted, I followed the link to refresh my memory. It seems like the more we explore, the better guesses we can provide for the variables. (I suppose that statement should be mod'ed (-1 Duh) )

      When I first read about Drake's equation, I remember thinking "How will they ever know the percentage of star systems that have planets?" Here we are thirty-mumble years later and there are reasonable data to support values for those variables.

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    3. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by McGillGirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shostak took that into account. He estimates between 10,000 and 1,000,000 radio-transmitters (planets with intelligent life). Considering the number of stars in our galaxy alone (100 billion according to the article), that only means we'll have to look everywhere in the galaxy to have a good chance of finding something. In the end, the uncertainty from the Drake equation doesn't affect his estimate at all.

    4. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Of course that is why Drake's equation is a joke. You can't calculate anything with a sample size of one. There is not one number is his equation that we can even estimate.

      And it really isn't that hard to get to actually less than one. There's a calculator here.
      I did some very reasonable estimates and came up with 0.2475.

    5. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, you have to try to pick valid values for the variables, however, many of the variables are rapidly becoming well defined:

      http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI /d rake_equation.html

      If we consider only our galaxy:

      N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

      of which we have answers for

      N* = number of stars in galaxy (~100billion)

      fp = fraction with planets (at least ~20%)

      ne = number planets per star that can spawn life (???)

      fl = fraction on which life evolves (??? but if we discover life evolved on mars and earth separately we'll have to assume this is reasonably large, so this might be settled soon)

      fi = % where intelligent life evolves (???)

      fc = % which communicate (???)

      fL = % of planetary lifetime during which communication takes place (currently we can assume this is a small non-zero value, and the longer we use radio waves the larger we can assume this value is).

      fp is rising rapidly as we discover more and more extrasolar planets.

      fL is rising steadily as our radio emitting civilization persists.

      ne may be more accurately guessable once we find out if mars, venus or europa harbor or ever harbored life.

      The key to the drake equation is that N* is a very very big number. And now that we know fp is not small (up to a few years ago many people argued that fp would be close to 0) we know that the other fractions need to be quite tiny to avoid having radio communicating civilizations other than our own around.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by Tassach · · Score: 1

      Even working within the bounds of those "best estimates", you can get anything from under ten to over ten thousand communicating civilizations in our galaxy. Let's say there are 1000 technological civilizations currently active in the Milky Way. A very rough estimate of the size of the galaxy is 1000 cubic kiloparsecs (1 parsec = 3.2 lightyears), so on average there's one civilization per cubic kiloparsec. The odds are that there is anyone close enough for us to hear them are pretty damn slim.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    7. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean..

      1) Number of stars in galaxy (~100billion)
      2) Fraction with planets (at least ~20%)
      3) Planets per star that can spawn intelligent life that can communicate (???)
      4) CONTACT!!

    8. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by selderrr · · Score: 1

      you forget one factor in your equation : the time-window. On galactic scale, we humans have been arond for a very very very short time. I'm not good at numbers, but it's probably in the order of 0.00000000000001% of the age of the universe. What are the odds that another civilisation reaches radio-maturity in the same time window ? And what are the odds that they still exist when their signal reaches us ? We send out signals today, but by the time they reach another civilisation, it's pretty likely that there's noone left anymore on earth to respond (nuclear war, ecologic disaster, comet impact, ...)

    9. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by smiths2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My guess is that ne and especially fi are quite small. In our system, we have ne being 11% (maybe 22%). Just judging by the time fi applies to this planet (150,000 years versus 4.5 billion years) we're looking at about 1/30,000. The assumption that intelligence is inevitable just doesn't hold water with me, either, as life does not need intelligence to survive, e.g. bacteria and insects.

      Also, because most of the stars in the galaxy are in the core, where the radiation effects are so much greater that the only likely life is extremophilic, the number of stars with habitable planets (ne) is probably quite a bit smaller than you suspect.

      Finally, heavy elements, like oxygen, carbon, silicon, iron, etc., are not exactly common. As I'm sure you know, they are only formed in other stars, and the only way they get back out to interstellar space is through supernovae or maybe planetary nebulas.

      Dream your Star Trek dreams. The greatest probability is that we are alone, in terms of intelligent life, in this galaxy.

    10. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by bareshiyth · · Score: 1

      I'm rather a fan of SETI, though often off-put by some of the things they say and do, this "prediction" being a good example. Of course, it's really just a gimmick to grab some good press, good vibes from the public, and bolster their (financial?) support in these hard times when politics, war, and NASA trying to recapture its former glory in space exploration (through the Bush admin new space exploration initiative).

      But, without getting into that, or the rest of this discussion, I just want to challenge your nifty equation (N= etc....), and more particularly, the factor "fp" (fraction of stars with planets). You claim that, now having discovered about 150, plus or minus, planets orbiting the billion stars in the Milky Way, we can assume about 20% of that billion stars have planets. That's quite a leap, I'd say. So much so as to be a non-sequiter. But, even worse, for your optimism/hopes (and SETI's, and even my own, I guess), the fact is that not one of those "planets" discovered, so far, is of a type, or in a location (orbit, orbit shape, and orbital distance from its sun) that it hold any promise for life (of any sort, let alone anything like life as we now understand it).

      Just FYO, I'd like to refer you to an article that just came out in Cornell University"s "e-print service" for the sciences. The title is, "How Special is the Solar System?". You can get it at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/040326 6.pdf . That will download the article. Here's the abstract:
      "Most mechanisms proposed for the formation of planets are modified versions of the mechanism proposed for the solar system. Here we argue that, in terms of those planetary systems which have been observed, the case for the solar system being a typical planetary system has yet to be established. We consider the possibility that most observed planetary systems have been formed in some quite dfferent way. If so, it may be that none of the observed planetary systems is likely to harbour an earth-like Planet."

      Read the whole thing and you get the rest of my point: all the "planets" discovered, so far, are very odd (usually gas giants in very bad neighborhoods) and quite unsuitable for life. And, as the abstract reveals, event the assumption that most (or even many) planets out there will be anything like our earth (or that the suns will have planetary systems like ours), or that their place in the galaxy will be at all decent (gravitationally, radiation & energy-wise, etc - that is, a rather quiet safe neighborhood, good for life), is a very unproven (and unlikely) assumption.

      I'd revise that "fp" way towards zero, and "ne" very very close to zero. Just for starts.

    11. Re:Prediction, or Guess? by smiths2 · · Score: 1

      Of course, the only exoplanets we could have detected by this point would be massive planets with either very small orbits or highly eccentric orbits when they were at perihelion. I'm not sure of the percentage of star systems that have been searched have actually been found to have planets at all. If the percentage is low, then we can begin to conclude that planet formation with a massive planet is not very probable. If, on the other hand, the percentage is high, then we can begin to conclude that most planetary systems are not like our solar system. In either case, the ne factor looks like it will be pretty small.

      Also, we have to realize that even though the Sun has been called an "average" star, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "median" star. There are not very many stars that are like the Sun, and stars that are much smaller than the Sun must have any habitable planets orbiting awefully close to them. That close orbit may cause other problems, such as having too much infrared light compared to the visible light, or having any terrestial planets have days that are too long, or some other conditions that are hostile to complex life. Stars that are much larger than the Sun will generally not last long enough to provide a stable energy source long enough for complex life to evolve.

  27. First decoded message.... by groupthink · · Score: 1

    "We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile."

    1. Re:First decoded message.... by freqres · · Score: 1

      Nah, it will probably be something like
      Voyager sucks

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    2. Re:First decoded message.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely:

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

  28. The big question is ... by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

    will they get sued by SCO?

  29. What about the lag on THEIR end? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this imply they believe that alien life is thousands of years ahead of us in technology?

    Consider this paragraph:
    Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates. But because they will probably be between 200 and 1000 light years away, sending a radio message back will take centuries.

    Ok, if they are on roughly the same time line we are, they'd have to have sent the messages 200 to 1000 years ago for us to GET the messages. It works both ways, they have to be AHEAD of us, significantly, to say that just because we're ready to hear them, if they exist, they'll have a message for us to hear.

    1. Re:What about the lag on THEIR end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. They will transmit to us through ansible.

    2. Re:What about the lag on THEIR end? by wahsapa · · Score: 0

      Orson Scott Card, Enders Game. good book, good series too

    3. Re:What about the lag on THEIR end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About halfway through the second book now.
      Some of the best stuff I've ever read. Really enjoying it, and I don't even consider myself a sci-fi geek.

    4. Re:What about the lag on THEIR end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1000 years difference is roughly the same time line. Billions of years differences are easy to imagine, although it's impossible to guess what a civilization billions of years old would be like.

      I've read your post five times now and still don't understand the point you are trying to make. Sorry if my point is entirely unrelated.

    5. Re:What about the lag on THEIR end? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it is a reasonable assumption given the time scale that we are not the furthest ahead in technology, by at least 1k years. In fact, there's no particular reason the dinosaurs couldn't have had big brains and radio transmissions millions of years ago, it's just that as far as we know that just didn't happen to evolve at the time.

      So yes, we're counting on our friend mr. probability to have set some of the other civilizations in the galaxy ahead of us in technology, and some behind. The ones behind we won't be able to hear yet.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:What about the lag on THEIR end? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      The point was that all their probability studies are based on our technological advancement to listen. They even acknowledge that if we can hear them, we still can't respond because of the time it would take to get there.

      My point is that if they are just getting to the point they can listen at the same time we are getting to the point we can listen, it'll still take another thousand years before the messages would get back and forth so either of us can hear the other. In other words, big deal we may be able to listen better in twenty years, there may be nothing to listen TO.

  30. what do they mean by 'contact' by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Is simply detecting intelligent life way out there 'contact'? Seems to me 'contact' is mutual recognition of one another's existence. That is, knowing they're there while they are oblivious to us isn't really 'contact'.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:what do they mean by 'contact' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detecting should be good enough. Like in Civ3, when you're in the age where galleys can only traverse coastal squares. You try to reach out to find other civilizations to contact, but you don't quite want to "stir the pot" yet.

      It's contact by choosing your own terms. No need to rush the mutual recognition just yet.

  31. math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Within 20 years.. and it's 2004 right now.

    This is pretty complicated let me pull out my slide rule:
    2004 + 20 = 2024
    So the topic should be "Seti Predicts We'll Find ETs by 2024"

    Funny, that's also an olympic year.. Will this be the next doping scandal?!?

    1. Re:math by Skavookie · · Score: 1

      You're better off doing addition in your head than with a sliderule. Sliderules are best suited to multiplication (although they can do other things).

  32. I, for one,... by KillerHamster · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...oops, a few years too early.

    1. Re:I, for one,... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...oops, a few years too early.

      You must be new here. Nothing is early on Slashdot. Just repost the story when you want to talk about it again. :)

  33. Sounds like... by sniggerfardimungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... in three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being ... The machine will begin to educate itself with fantastic speed. In a few months it will be at genius level and a few months after that its powers will be incalculable ... -- Marvin Minsky, LIFE Magazine, November 20, 1970

  34. And I predict by voicecrying · · Score: 0, Troll

    that by 2020 they will have changed the prediction 100 times because they keep discovering their assumptions are wrong. But they will refuse to give up wasting their time searching for the non-existent.

    --
    Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.
    1. Re:And I predict by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      But they will refuse to give up wasting their time searching for the non-existent.

      It would be pretty damned stupid to assume that with all the planets of all the stars of all the galaxies in our enormous universe, we're the only sentient species.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    2. Re:And I predict by voicecrying · · Score: 1

      Why would that be stupid?

      --
      Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.
    3. Re:And I predict by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because there's nothing spectacularly odd about this planet. It's an average star, there's billions just like it in our galaxy alone. There's _three_ planets and a number of gas giant moons reasonably close to Earth's size, just within this one star system. The range within which liquid water can exist is pretty large, several dozen million miles across. So with all that, the odds of not one single earth-sized planet within 80-120 millions miles of a G3 star forming anywhere, ever, is vanishingly, stupidly small. To say nothing of other combinations which can produce the same result; larger stars with the planet further away, smaller stars with rocky planets closer in.

      At this point, we're reduced to problems of biology. We have easily produced amino acids in recreations of primordial Earth, so clearly organic compounds in general are not difficult. Similarly, life on Earth has proved to be ridiculously tenacious, reproducing and thriving in even the most disgusting conditions. Bridging the gap between amino acids barely capable of forming proteins and self-reproducing molecules is the only real unlikelihood here. But there are a number of plausible theories that don't involve seeding by extraterrestrials, merely time and chance.

      If we assume that life can easily form on planets that can support it (which would definitely be backed up by the discovery of ancient life on Mars), it is highly reasonable to conclude that among the stars, life is as commonplace as dirt.

      The development of sapience is probably the most unlikely item on the list. There's nothing about primates that tends towards intelligence that hasn't happened before, it just took a combination of the right evolutionary and environmental coincidences. On Earth, the inner workings of DNA and RNA biochemistry got about as good as it ever will eons ago. But it still took a billion years of recombination for sentience to develop. Whether or not it occurs elsewhere is something we'll just have to go and see for ourselves, but with (potentially) trillions of planets and eons upon eons of history to work with, the odds are pretty good.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    4. Re:And I predict by voicecrying · · Score: 1

      We have easily produced amino acids in recreations of primordial Earth

      If it were only that simple. First, no one can say for sure what the primordial earth was like. Second, these amino acids were created by an intelligent being (the scientists) in a strictly controlled environment (hmmm, intelligent being created... sounds kinda like Genesis 1), and third, these created amino acids lacked chirality.

      --
      Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.
    5. Re:And I predict by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      no one can say for sure what the primordial earth was like

      It was very hot and the air composition and water content was similar to what you'd find around active volcanoes. I can't say what kind of variations the "life in a test tube" experiment environment has been performed in, but I doubt there's a precise recipe for it.

      these amino acids were created by an intelligent being in a strictly controlled environment

      Uh, no, they weren't. Any more than I 'created' kittens by keeping two cats in my house, or 'created' mold by leaving the leftover pizza in my fridge too long.

      hmmm, intelligent being created... sounds kinda like Genesis 1

      Really? Genesis says, "And the Lord said, 'Let there be an environment in which ', and it was good"? Is there a detailed description of how the seas formed? Is it explained why the fossil record says there were plants and animals eons before humans, when the bible says otherwise? Sounds to me like you're just peddling your thoroughly debunked mythology.

      these created amino acids lacked chirality.

      This hack constantly claims that without chirality, DNA couldn't do it's job, nor the proteins and enzymes that modern organisms depend on. I've no idea if this is true, but who exactly was it that made the claim that it was DNA that formed by chance in these primordeal seas? Were you under the impression that every single protein that exists _today_ was formed in these vats of un-chiral amino acids? Are you implying that proteins of any kind, not necessarily the ones that exist today, could not form in such an environment? This article constantly works off the assumption that DNA has not itself done any evolving, and was formed entirely complete, right down to the self-repair mechanisms, all the way back at the beginning. The only people making that claim are guys like you.

      The point is, when referring to how amino acids first became life forms, referring to DNA and modern proteins tells me only that you are making the usual bogus creationist argument that complex systems like eyeballs cannot occur naturally. You look at the finished product and say, "Could never happen by chance", without looking at all the useful interim steps that could have led to it.

      Interestingly enough, however, scientists have the same problem with the Big Bang theory. According to theory, when energy condenses down to matter, it should do so into equal parts matter and antimatter. In fact, when we make antimatter, that's exactly what we get. This sort of process would not yield the universe of stuff we see today. And yet nobody thinks that this is proof positive that god exists and wants you to be christian. Real scientists go back and try to figure out what they missed. They don't just play the "Omnipotent Deity" wildcard to explain away all the unknowns like creationists do.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  35. Bigger question... by Gaima · · Score: 1

    ... are there actually aliens to find?!

    Then, even if there are, had they advanced enough to send out the signals we can detect, long enough ago for those signals to reach us?

  36. Seems to me by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

    That there is a big difference between making "first contact" and "detecting their transmissions".

    We could stumble across a repeating, non-natural signal tomorrow, and granted this would be one of the top 3 (if not the greatest) scientific discovery ever, but it is unlikely we would be able to do anything with this discovery for a very, very long time. Understanding the message would probably take decades, sending a reply would take light years, and holding any kind of meaningful communication would require technology totally and completely beyond our current levels.

    1. Re:Seems to me by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      I find it unlikely that we wouldn't be able to understand an alien message within a few months. Such a discovery would have many people working on it. Assuming they use some sort of rational broadcasting method the format should be easy to decode within a few weeks at the most. The only issue we'll have is with the content, and that won't matter because we'll probably just fire off a message that is designed to be decoded and as understandable as possible, then listen to their broadcasts for the next couple hundred years trying to figure out their content.

      And as to the question of what we'll be able to do with it - just knowing there is other intelligent life within communications range will be doing something so monumental that it might be more important than anything the ETs have to say.

      Finally, no matter where they are in the galaxy, if we were to focus our broadcast to just transmit to them, we could reach them with radio. Right now we broadcast to the whole sky, and restricting that range would improve the broadcast strength by hundreds of dB's certainly, maybe more.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    2. Re:Seems to me by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Two-way communication is probably centuries off, either due to comms lag or the time it will take to discover the sci-fi advance that will cut out the time lag.

      But that's largely irrelevant. The philosophical, social, and theological implications have an immediate, massive impact. Hell, even discovering some sort of microbe on Mars would be a massive advance from "here is the only place in the universe with life" to "there's something out there".

      I believe most Slashdotters have no particular desire to hold up humans as the center of the universe, and would be thrilled to know that life could happen elsewhere. But many others would be less than thrilled. Even among Slashdotters there is the occasional creationist (or very sincere troll) who I suspect would be rather put out to know that God neglected to inform them that He created life more than once in the universe. Just yesterday I saw somebody claiming that evolution makes no testable predictions. It does: one is that life should exist elsewhere in the universe. It's not a terribly falsifiable hypothesis, but we could at least put error bars on it.

      Even a single data additional data point would double the number of known places where life could evolve, which would greatly improve the precision of the calculations in the Drake Equation (which has error bars measured in orders-of-magnitude). We'd know a lot more about just how lonely the universe is, how fast civilizations evolve, and how quickly they decline.

      Compared to all that, intelligible communications would be just the icing on the cake. Sweet icing indeed: even a single translated intercept would give us our first look at the syntax of a mind without human builtin structures, not to mention the semantic and semiotic implications.

      But to me, I'd be satisfied just knowing that they're there.

    3. Re:Seems to me by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Is there a term "units nazi" for someone who points out that light years are units of length, not time?

    4. Re:Seems to me by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      Even among Slashdotters there is the occasional creationist (or very sincere troll) who I suspect would be rather put out to know that God neglected to inform them that He created life more than once in the universe. Just yesterday I saw somebody claiming that evolution makes no testable predictions. It does: one is that life should exist elsewhere in the universe. It's not a terribly falsifiable hypothesis, but we could at least put error bars on it.

      even on slashdot? You don't say! Later, explain to me how making that statement didn't make you a troll. Anyway, if you could kindly tell me where in the Bible anything is said about god not creating life anywhere else, I'd be thrilled. On the flip though, no "should" will ever prove anything. We well could have all evolved from a bit of random organic material, and there still not be a single other planet on which that occured. On the other hand, the whole universe could have been created (by an implied God/diety/etc) in any particular state, mankind have been placed here sans evolution, and yet life have also been placed on other planets. This wouldn't even be contrary somehow to the Judeo-Christian religion.

      So no, whether life exists elsewhere doesn't prove or disprove evolution, or creation. Both could have the same results just as easily.

    5. Re:Seems to me by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      I find it unlikely that we wouldn't be able to understand an alien message within a few months. Such a discovery would have many people working on it. Assuming they use some sort of rational broadcasting method the format should be easy to decode within a few weeks at the most. The only issue we'll have is with the content,

      So, we'll be able to understand an alien message within a few months, except for the content. I take it you mean we'll be able to discern the format in only a few months? I'm not so confident. Without knowing that a TV set uses three electron guns, just how "obvious" are our television broadcasts?

      Or, for that matter, how "obvious" is the format of a bitstream when we have no clue as to content?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Seems to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention you're talking about analog signals. As far as digital goes they could (and most likely would) be using a system totally alien to us. Decoding a digital transmission would be near impossible. What base system would they use? What is the nature of the data? Television? Audio? Computer code of some kind? Something we haven't even thought of? Is it encrypted? Do they think in 1's and 0's or in Qbits?

      That scene in Independence Day where they take out the mother ship with a virus is so incredibly preposterous it sickens me. But this is the mentality of your average raised by television drone.

      Just knowing there's another intelligent race out there would make even it's detection one of the most important discoveries in the history of mankind. Actually deciphering it would take a very long time IMHO...and if we ever did, what we could learn from a race that independently developed technology boggles the mind.

    7. Re:Seems to me by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      I'm going to say the un-sayable, karma be damned:

      The word 'bible' means 'a collection of books'. These books were written and edited by humans. The bible is a good glimpse into the way men thought thousands of years ago. Not every word should be taken literally. A few examples:

      It's ok to keep slaves if you release them after 7 years.
      Non-virgin brides should be taken to the city gates and stoned to death.
      Women are property of men, like cattle and sheep.
      If you eat pork, you will go to hell.
      The earth is the center of the universe.
      Natural disasters are caused by bad people pissing off God.

      In other words, if the bible were written today it would reflect the attitudes, predjuces and superstitions of today. Just cause it says it in the bible, doesn't make it true. Sorry, the Bible is not proof of anything, in and of itself.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    8. Re:Seems to me by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      not only does it not say those things (you're taking GREAT liberties with saying it does), but I fail to see your point. Point is that nothing says in the Bible that we're the only life in the universe. At the time it would have been silly to suggest otherwise anyway...planets? Huh?

  37. Two questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Will it be analog or digital
    and
    2) Will we still be around after the Mayan calendar ends on Dec 21st 2012?

    And speaking of surviving, anyone notice that the MadCow thing seems to be starting up in the UK, just as John Titor predicted, no one believed it could turn into an epidemic but if it travels through the blood supply, uh oh.

  38. We know from the Movies... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...that Aliens are susceptible to Macintosh Viruses! (What was that movie? Was it "Judgement Day"? I forgot the name.)

    1. Re:We know from the Movies... by yevaud_us · · Score: 1

      It was Independence Day

    2. Re:We know from the Movies... by dave420 · · Score: 0

      Independence Day. When the President gave that shit-awful speech, the whole cinema burst out laughing. Horrible US masturbation movie.

    3. Re:We know from the Movies... by dragonp12 · · Score: 1

      Independance Day :-|

      --
      This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
    4. Re:We know from the Movies... by Cujo · · Score: 1

      Worst Movie. Evar.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    5. Re:We know from the Movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even see the second Matrix movie?

  39. Bigger Deal: Singularity or Discovery of Aliens? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

    Singularity or Alien Life. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're both going to happen within a year of eachother. What if the first transmission was source code for AI?

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
  40. That's some serious lag time by artemis67 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I guess a game of Doom 3 with our new extraterrestrial friends is out of the question.

    1. Re:That's some serious lag time by irokitt · · Score: 1

      No, but a good game of Pong just might be feasible.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:That's some serious lag time by Rauser · · Score: 1


      Maybe Duke Nukem Forever might be ready by then...

      --
      The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
    3. Re:That's some serious lag time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I host the server, I might actually win a game :) Then again, with my bad aim, I don't think so...

    4. Re:That's some serious lag time by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the bandwidth is great, but given the latency.... uh... yea, probably.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  41. encrypted messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they use MS products then we should be able to decrypt their messages pretty easily

  42. Beyond questions of decoding, replies, lag time .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    etc., there is the vital question of "what's up with the probing, dude?". I mean, seriously, what are they expecting to find up there anyway?

  43. Better brush up on... by LaTechTech · · Score: 1

    your fake Star Trek language skills!

    --
    I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
  44. Breaking News on Alpha Ceti 5 by w3weasel · · Score: 3, Funny
    Attention Greeblorgs!
    Top Greeblorg scientists have determined that an alien species located on Sol 3 have discovered our civilization!
    All radio and digitized light arrays should be temporarily taken off-line and back-ups of all data secured.

    A phenomenon the Solerians refer to as Slash-Dotting is certain to disable all arrays with less than a direct quantum connection to the central data core

    Greeblorg drones have assured the prime council that appropriate measures are in place to protect the central data core from damage, though interruption to communications to and from the central data core are likely

    That is all

    --

    Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy

  45. 16 years of radio lotto by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates. But because they will probably be between 200 and 1000 light years away, sending a radio message back will take centuries.
    OK, I'm curious. How is this 200-1000 light year estimate derived?
    "But predicting the date, the decade or even the century of contact is another matter because the 'other end' of the communications link is completely out of our hands. ..."
    Our planet emits enough radio energy to look like a small sun, but it hasn't done so for very long. Some scientists believe that it won't continue at the present level, either, because future requirements will demand higher-capacity transmissions -- radio transmission will fall off in favor of something that's more tightly-focused, in other words.

    Making the large assumption that an alien race will go through a similar radio transmission curve, and considering the fact that we don't know how far away said alien civilization is, the chances of us finding them between now and 2020 seems very remote.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    1. Re:16 years of radio lotto by cecille · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the light year estimate does seem to be a little bit off...considering the assumption was that life would be somewhere in the galaxy, and the galaxy is more like 100,000 light-years across. So, even if we're right in the dead center, which we're not, you're looking at an upper estimate of at least 50,000 light-years, not the 1000 quoted in the article. Kinda makes the wait time a wee bit longer, eh?

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
    2. Re:16 years of radio lotto by Skavookie · · Score: 1

      It may be that what they are saying is that interstellar dust and such limits radio communication to 1k ly.

    3. Re:16 years of radio lotto by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Our planet emits enough radio energy to look like a small sun, but it hasn't done so for very long. Some scientists believe that it won't continue at the present level, either, because future requirements will demand higher-capacity transmissions -- radio transmission will fall off in favor of something that's more tightly-focused, in other words.

      I find this unlikely. After all, we didn't stop using AM and FM radio when compact microwave transcievers became available, despite having much higher bandwidth available.

      Beamed systems or phased arrays being used for point to point will reduce the amount of easily interpreted radiation, but all that means is that an advanced radio-using civilization will just look like a noise-emitter.

      I'd actually put this as the main stumbling block to identifying ET civilizations - we may not be able to easily distinguish artificial radio sources from natural ones.

    4. Re:16 years of radio lotto by NichG · · Score: 1

      The estimate is probably derived by first estimating the density of alien civilizations (i.e. in a region of space 1 ly by 1 ly by 1 ly, what's the probability that it contains a communicating alien civilization that transmits the sort of stuff we're looking for). Then find the volume where that probability reaches some threshold you've set (50%? 90%?). So you can say something like 'based on these estimated parameters, there is an x% probability that there is an alien civilization within 1000 lightyears of us that we should be able to detect'.

      Of course, it's still based on estimates of the parameters, so that's going to make things a bit more malleable. So what it could be is that they picked two sets of extremes for the parameters - the ones that give the highest density of alien civilizations thats still 'reasonable' and the ones that give the lowest density thats still 'reasonable' and used those to get the 200-1000 ly range.

    5. Re:16 years of radio lotto by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      OK, I'm curious. How is this 200-1000 light year estimate derived?

      Maybe because that's all they will have scanned by then?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  46. SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the first sentence of TFA:

    If Intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, advances in computer processing power and radio telescope technology will ensure we detect their transmissions within two decades (my emphasis)

    Even if ETs do exist, there are a host of long-standing doubts about whether they'll be using "transmissions" (questionable), or whether those transmissions will be distinguishable from random noise (OK, probably).

    Sensationalist, moi?

    1. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      or if they are transmitting they may be using frequencies or methods we cannot use yet such as Zero point frequency communication.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by arcanumas · · Score: 1

      Or worse... ipv6!

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    3. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many people assume that ETs exists, however odds are against it. We already have the technology to detect a civilization like ours in around 1000 light year radius. So far, no luck. 1000 light year radius has about 100 million stars. Not to mention, Sol is in a "quiet" galactic arm, no big/giant stars around it, although the Alpha Centauri or Sirius dwarves in those binary systems might end up in a supernova one day. So for 2 decades of listening we got nothing out of about 100 million stars. Do SETI folks ever consider the Fermi Paradox?

    4. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by dragonp12 · · Score: 1

      "however odds are against it"

      In a near-infinite universe, I would think that the odds are very much against us being the only sentient species in any time or place.

      --
      This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
    5. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just think... the ETs probably use CDMA (Andy Viterbi may have more influence than we think).

      SETI'll have a hard time grokking the spread spectrum.

      or whether those transmissions will be distinguishable from random noise (OK, probably)

      I submit: probably not.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    6. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Right, but there could be one civilization per 100 galaxies and there would still be room for billions of them; all with next to zero chance of contacting each other.

    7. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I would be very surprised if you couldn't recognize patterns in one slice of a spread-spectrum radio conversation. Having found one piece, they will then look for the other frequencies. Presumably they do not scan for just one frequency anyway, but instead search for patterns over a range of frequencies. Piecing together a spread-spectrum communication from a sufficiently high-resolution sampling of the radio spectrum signal should be no more difficult than common cryptographic tasks. In fact I should think that we should be worried that any signal we'll pick up might be encrypted!

      Here's my logic on this one: To the best of my knowledge we are not deliberately sending out any kind of signal to other potential galactic civilizations. Therefore in our experience 0% of the cultures in the galaxy do so. Of course we hardly know anything worth telling to the rest of the universe - after all we've only recently developed the ability to search for intelligent life outside our solar system, so we can always hope that other civilizations more advanced than we are would be sending out information, hopefully some way we can communicate with them instantaneously (hey, anything is possible right?) so that our discovery of their existence will be something other than meaningless. But anyway, back to my point - assuming that we're not picking up a signal meant specifically for beings like ourselves to receive, aren't the odds good that it will be encrypted? Even our cellular telephone conversations are encrypted now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by TrevorB · · Score: 1

      Prediction by presuming the hypothesis to be true.

      By the same logic, we'll find the WMD in Iraq within the next 20 years.

      You *might* be able to make a strong case for the opposite, that if we don't hear anything within 20 years, that there may probably *not* be anything nearby. Or one of SETI's other hypotheses are wrong.

    9. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by Saeger · · Score: 1
      A civilization is only technologically advanced enough to broadcast inefficient radio waves for a VERY short window of evolutionary time, and we've also only been listening for a VERY short window of time as well. At the end of that window (which we ourselves are approaching), we either destroy ourselves, or we reach the Singularity and our external communications become intelligently energy efficient and hence indisguishable from background noise.

      On the cosmic scale, the type of civilizations SETI is searching for only exist for a blink of an eye, and we just haven't been listening long enough.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    10. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by dragonp12 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree with you. The chances of SETI (or anything else) actually ever finding something are slim, with current technology.

      --
      This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
    11. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      whether those transmissions will be distinguishable from random noise (OK, probably)

      On the other hand, they might be transmitting in Perl...

    12. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Hm. Well, I suspect that correlating spread spectrum is a potentially NP-incomplete problem, but I'm getting out of my depth here.

      Still, not knowing anything has never stopped me from speculating. So here's my thinking:

      - A sufficiently spread spectrum signal is indistinguishable from noise.

      - A sufficiently encrypted signal is indistinguishable from noise.

      Thus, in true SETI-ish Wide-eyed Believer-mode Optimism, I declare that we have *already* successfully detected many, many ETs, but we just can't understand them yet. We just need to correlate the signals and decrypt 'em.

      All we need to do is get the Bible Code folks on it, and pretty soon, we'll discover that the ETs predicted the assassination of JFK...

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    13. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, no. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I don't think this is true. There are repeating signals in most types of communication, for instance to signify the beginning and end of a byte, or in certain types of encoding, there is a transition between a 0 state and a 1 state between every two bits, and two bits are used to encode every one bit, so that you can maintain sync based on transitions. Noise will be at "random" times and for equally random durations, or it will be regular but recognizable like pulsars.

      I think that the most likely problem that we won't find anyone with SETI is simply that advanced civilizations will have moved on from radio communications, and gone to magnetics (for short range which we wouldn't pick up anyway) or gravitic communications, or perhaps something exotic that we haven't managed to extract useful data from yet, like linked particles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  47. First contact by Black+Jack+Hyde · · Score: 1

    The first way we'll know if contact has been made is when all the grown-ups disappear. No parents!

    1. Re:First Contact by cavac · · Score: 1

      Originally yes. But we changed that.

      Only we came to this lousy planet (great oceans, though) the first time, did we realize that humans weren't that evolved after all.

      So the the current plans are to make official contact around 2350.

      But if you're in a real hurry to leave the planet - e.g. before your phone bill arrives - i may help you to get a ride in a Antarian freighter that does regular deliveries for our staff here.

      --
      Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
  48. What if... by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Funny

    What if we finally detect messages from alien civilizations and all they say are things like

    - Enlarge Your Penis
    - Make $$$$ At Home
    - A Letter from Npambara Ngamba: My Dear Friend, I am trying to move a large quantity of money out of my country...

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:What if... by JimDabell · · Score: 1
    2. Re:What if... by cavac · · Score: 1

      So why do you call humans intelligent?

      We have wars against each other all over the place, a third of the earth population is starving, the rest is threatened by their governments and/or major companies to stop having free speech.

      If you think of it, even ants and bees are better organised, therefore must also be more intelligent.

      --
      Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
    3. Re:What if... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      What a great idea!

      Hello and greetings, exalted earthling!

      Allow me to introduce myself, my name is unpronoucable without a tertiary lingual organ, but you may call me "Deebalgribblegribble". I worked in the Intergalactic Department of Gold and Platinum Mining. Recently due to several high profile political crisis, our agency has been on a footstring budget, and transporting these rare and expensive elements has been increasingly difficult.I am forced to take many risky shortcuts to move my quota of bullion each trimonth. One such shortcut would be Earth itself! If only we had a refueling outpost there. However, if you would allow me to land on your property (what a quaint notion, in the TibbleTak Empire, everyone owns their own Zik-class planet), I could surely leave behind a modest amount of gold, as much as 19,000 earth pounds. This would ocurr every 9.1 of your earth months. Of course, there is the matter of refueling, which may be difficult, though not impossible given your rapidly progressing technology. Having been referred to you by a close and mutual friend, I took the opportunity to set up an account with a subsidiary of your Dow Chemical company, which I have been assured is an esteemed banking institution. Our mutual friend promised that you would never pass up such an incredible opportunity, and so, if you transfer a negligible manufacturing fee to this bank, for the fuel I need to prepare this nefarious and dangerous navigation challenge, we could alter the path of the freigter fleet immediately. By this time next April month, you could be rich, and my transport schedule could be back to normal. Now, Even as close and mutual as our mutual friend is friendly, I could not trust such a plan on his personal assurances, so forgive me if I have take the opportunity to contact some of our friendly friends mutual other friends, to see whether they would be willing to assist in this very important endeavor. If they transfer the fee first, I will have no more gold or platinum to spare on this round of the transportation, and you may not be able to participate until May month of year 2005! So please, transfer this fee today, so that we may immediately begin to start planning this important plan. I will even arrange for some Alpha Reticulan sex slaves to be transported to your residence, the species with 19 vaginal orifices! Attached you will find a file indicating the proper routing and account numbers, and plans for building a proper landing zone for our saucers!

      Thank you,
      Deebalgribblegribble
      Assistant Deputy Undersecretary Assistant of Intergalactic Gold and Platinum Mining Transportation

    4. Re:What if... by cephyn · · Score: 1

      thumbs man. not brains. its what separates us from the animals. Sure, dolphins are smarter, but can they hold a fork? NO! it all comes down to thumbs.

      --
      Moo.
    5. Re:What if... by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      Seriously, has anyone considered the possibility that the only intelligent life-forms in the universe maybe humans in past, present and future form ?

      If this was the case, the structure of the universe would have to be periodic on a scale of 20 light years. It isn't.

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

      You mean I was anally probed for nothing??? Damn, that's the last time I put out for somebody who claims to be an alien.

    7. Re:What if... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      We have wars against each other all over the place, a third of the earth population is starving, the rest is threatened by their governments and/or major companies to stop having free speech.

      Wars, true. Threatened by our governments, possible.

      One third of the earth's population starving? Well, no. That would be 2 billion people. SInce India, China, Europe, and North America feed themselves, that leaves only ~2.75 billion people who are potentially starving.

      So, you're asserting that 80% of the people outside Europe, North America, China and India are starving???

      I don't think so, Lucy.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:What if... by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      So you're asserting that 0% of the people in India, China, Europ and North America are starving? I don't think so.

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    9. Re:What if... by sinnfeiner1916 · · Score: 0

      0% doesn't mean 0 people.

      --
      The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
    10. Re:What if... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Yes, because animals live in perfect harmony and never fight.

      Yutz

    11. Re:What if... by mansoft · · Score: 1

      Seriously, has anyone considered the possibility that the only intelligent life-forms in the universe maybe humans in past, present and future form ?

      Nope, you're the first one. Congratulations.

      --

      Engage!

    12. Re:What if... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Pretty much.

      By the way, Bread for the World believes there are ~842 million people who are "hungry", as distinguished from "starving". That's ~13% or the world's population who are "hungry", not starving.

      The UN says that ~5% (40M) of Africa's population is starving, or under threat of starvation this year. Plus North Korea. That's another 23M, assuming everyone there is starving. Which is unlikely. And there's a three year old reference to Afghanistan (~7.5M).

      Let's assume that those references are HALF the people starving in the world today. So the total number is probably less than 150M, people, or 2.3%.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:What if... by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      No, not exactly, the combination of brains and thumbs is what helped homo sapiens rise above the other animals. The homo sapiens ability to think and adapt was aided by the thumb. Although, even people without thumbs are able to live completely normal and productive lives. It all comes to down to Evolution.

    14. Re:What if... by burns210 · · Score: 1

      "So why do you call humans intelligent?"

      We are self-aware?

    15. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you read the novel "Sphere" by Michael Crichton. It's a good book touching on some of the ideas you've brought up.

    16. Re:What if... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      To quote Lister in Red Dwarf: "Don't give me that Star Trek crap, it's too early in the morning."

      Dude. Stop reading those moronic science fiction novels where the great relevation at the end is that the savage warlike race is humanity and the aliens were all peaceful and happy and we were wiping them out. That was old and dull in the 60s. Humans aren't so bad... remember that any other civilization we meet will have developed in the same way we did, by competing with others for resources, and the odds that they'd be some holy Godlike race with no wars, famine or greed is just stupid. We're doing just fine as a race, ok?

    17. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a signal could bounce off something?

    18. Re:What if... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, has anyone considered the possibility that the only intelligent life-forms in the universe maybe humans in past, present and future form ?

      Of course not, you actually think scientists would think that way? A scientists assumes something is true until it can be proven false for one thing. Plus, scientists aren't religious either so since they assume evolution is real then it can occur anywhere and thus life can just appear out of nothing anywhere in the universe. Based on that line of thinking they think it's just a matter of time before they find something. Far be it from the rest of us to say it's a waste of money and we should take care of things on Earth before we spend billions trying to find something that is so far away it's unimaginable.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    19. Re:What if... by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

      I've been browsing at -1 (bored at university) but still can't find the answer to that exact question. So sorry if this is redundant, but just how does SETI distinguish between genuine ET signals and our own TV etc bouncing off, like Pluto or something? I mean, If you are looking for a nice, stable carrier among the random noise, surely the easiest to hear will be one of our own from a few years ago, that's just been reflected off some big dead rock ou there

    20. Re:What if... by DrCash · · Score: 1
      That's probably quite unlikely, considering that humans are not the only "intelligent" life on Earth. We have already discovered several other forms of life on our own planet with varying degrees of intelligence; granted, none as quite as smart as us yet,...

      Consider other species, such as dolphins/porpoises, whales, chimpanzees (which share 98.7% of our own DNA), even dogs. A recent study published on cnn.com not to long ago even confirms that domesticated dogs actually understnd about 200 of our own words!

    21. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then we will know of at least 2 planets with life, but not intelligent.

  49. I don't get these kinds of predictions by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    They don't really "predict" anything. Just because it's based on some other theories doesn't suddenly mean we really will contact aliens in 20 years just because they said so. Organizations like to make vague, arbitrary predictions like this to stir up publicity. It's like when "experts" make claims that we'll have robot servents by 2012. It's meaningless.

    1. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1
    2. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      It's just like Nuclear Fusion. In 1950, nuclear fusion plants were "only 20 years away". Then in 1970, they were "only 20 years away". In 1990, they were "only 20 years away". Today, the most advanced fusion reactor ever will power up a set of Terrawatt lasers (don't wow too much, they only fire about one terrajoule a piece) in less than 10 years. And because of this, nuclear fission is only 20 years away. *sigh*

    3. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by reezle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I read a book when I was 8 that said we'd contact aliens by 2010-2015. I've been holding my breath ever since. They also wrote about the flying cars, moon bases, and solar power satellites that we've been enjoying these past 4 years or so... I just wish I didn't live in such a back-waters part of the country that's still driving around on 4 tyres.

    4. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, it's true that today fusion power is still 20-30 years away, but there is good reason to believe that in another 50 years, it will only be 10-15 years away.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    5. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by ROOK*CA · · Score: 1

      They don't really "predict" anything.

      EXACTLY, this is more wishful thinking than a valid "prediction". It's as likely that we'll find alien radio signals tomorrow as it is that we'll never find them.

      This prediction is in part based on the Drake equation which is LARGELY based on suppositions. Even today we have no real hard data on terrestrial (earth like) planet formation, how likely life is to occur and alien civilization technological development cycles. Besides the equation only takes into account the number of stars in the Milky Way which, based on the number of stars outside of our galaxy that we can see sorta makes this too small of a subset for anywhere near an accurate calculation (IMHO).

      You'd have a higher probability of predicting when you're going to win the Lottery than when we'll have "first contact" with an Alien species (I am firmly convinced that they ARE out there, however the sheer vastness of the Universe makes finding them a VERY low probability exercise).

    6. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      [obFunnyErrorPost]

      And because of this, nuclear fission is only 20 years away. *sigh*

      Psst! Hey buddy, I can show you the Technology of 2020, here, today!

    7. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Doh! See what muscle memory does to a person? You intend to type one word, but a similar word that you're more used to spelling comes out.

    8. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by Cruciform · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you've been holding your breath that long, you might just be the alien we're looking for.

    9. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I meant to type "How insightful" but typed "You're a moron" by mistake.

    10. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig is wrong.

    11. Re:I don't get these kinds of predictions by Lours · · Score: 1

      I read a book when I was 8 that said we'd contact aliens by 2010-2015. I've been holding my breath ever since. They also wrote about the flying cars, moon bases, and solar power satellites that we've been enjoying these past 4 years or so... I just wish I didn't live in such a back-waters part of the country that's still driving around on 4 tyres.

      Hum, this was not so innacurate. At least we'll have the flying cars soon if this company doesn't bankrupt before shipping the first one.

      As for the solar satellites, this was a bad idea anyway and as for the moon, if we want to send GWB there, we'll have to build it quite soon so all hope is not lost yet ;)

  50. True if... by cephyn · · Score: 1

    ...one, someone keeps paying to listen (not a guarantee, but I hope it happens) and two, there's somone out there for us to here. If there isn't, it sure is an awful waste of space, seeing as how we're not exactly jumping to fill it. But that's another matter entirely.

    --
    Moo.
  51. But they will be here before then ... by paul's+ponderinngs · · Score: 1

    ... 22 Dec 2012.

  52. Re:Bigger Deal: Singularity or Discovery of Aliens by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    Didnt I see that on six star trek two outer limits and one stargate episodes?

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  53. Cover the odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Shostak came up with an estimate of between 10,000 and 1 million radio transmitters in the galaxy.

    He then went on to plan how many pizza's he needed to order for the lab and he estimated somewhere between 5 and 18,000...

  54. SETI will also find... by bdigit · · Score: 1

    Duke Nukem Forever has yet to be released after searching the whole galaxy for it.

  55. Little bit speculative. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

    fl, fi, fc and FL (number of planets capable of supporting life, planets with intelligent life etc. ) are all more or less guesses.

  56. 2020 is going to be quite a year! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ET discovered AND Duke Nukem Forever goes alpha!

  57. There are not aliens (except in citizenship sense) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there were, the Bible would not say that "man" was created in gods image. It would say "man and others". The Bible is clear that we are the only forms out there, and that all other areas were made for us. We would be all over the universe now if it were not for The Fall, which is something we should all regret and strive to make up for.

  58. Looking in the wrong place? by shawkin · · Score: 1

    Why would an advanced technology use a method limited to the speed of light to communicate across the galaxy?

    SETI brings to mind a picture of some remote tribe looking for smoke signals as a sign of intelligent communication while standing next to a satellite dish.

    1. Re:Looking in the wrong place? by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Why would an advanced technology use a method limited to the speed of light to communicate across the galaxy?

      And why should we thing that the laws of physics that we hold to be true (if in fact they are) don't apply other places in the universe.

      I am not a physicist but isn't the speed of light a theoretical limit? Don't physical dimensions decrease as c is approached? Doesn't that imply that exceeding the speed of light would result in negative physical dimensions? Perhaps antimatter is just stuff traveling faster then the speed of light.

      I am verly likely wrong on all the above counts. Any physicists out there?

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  59. Damn Aliens by drxs3v3n · · Score: 0

    Well probably have to annialate them once we find them can't have any threats out there in space and find aliens by 2020 I am glad they aren't setting a realistic goal ??????

  60. Whats With the Fake Alien Names? by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1
    First Contact Within 20 Years: Shostak

    Come on - how many others thought "Shostak? Is that some made-up alien name from a science fiction show on at 3 a.m. on a cable channel?"

    Turns out it's an actual Terran name. Go figure.

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  61. after we meet each other by edson+at+lies.cl · · Score: 0

    there will be too much lag to chat or play cs(q3,ut,chess) with them :(

    --
    i have found, you can find,happiness in slavery!
  62. That sounds safe by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    will make first contact with aliens within 20 years.

    Now that sounds like a safe prediciton. Rather like the we'll have flat-screen televisions that we just unroll and hang on the wall in 5 years that I've been hearing for the past twenty.

    Seriously though, the idea that life must exist elsewhere, and will communicate in a method we can detect across interstellar distances, is still just that -- a theory.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  63. Re:Bigger Deal: Singularity or Discovery of Aliens by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

    I've never watched that show though I liked the original womanizing (femalecreatureizing) Kirk.

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
  64. RE: Wrong...I by fshalor · · Score: 1

    It will be 2047. The'll come fleeing another race. We'll build lots of stuff with them. And then the other race will come to hunt us both down. 300 years later, the earth is destroyed and we're homeless. But we also take back most of the known space about 10 years after that.

    I know this becasue I wrote it. :)

    --
    -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
  65. The future will come... by KillerCow · · Score: 1

    ... in 15 to 20 years.

    Usually it comes in 10 to 15 years. In this case it must take the signal an extra 5 years to get here. Either that, or someone can't do arithmetic.

  66. The Priests have spoken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ordained ones have spoken; all bow an dprostrate before the great altar of SETI!

    SETH commands that you hand over your tithe to SETI so that the great work of SETI may continue!

    If you have no offering, you must hand over your CPU CYCLES to SETH so that the distributed power can be siphoned to SETI!

    ALL HAIL SCIENCE!
    ALL HAIL SETH!
    ALL HAIL THE LEARNED ELECT!
    ALL HAIL SETI!

  67. Finding lag time by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Funny
    what's the lag time....

    ping -s -R -A inet6 -a aliencivilizations

    Duh.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:Finding lag time by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1

      Probably no worse than the original Doom lag times

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
  68. What would we hear by Comen · · Score: 1

    If the time it takes for a signal to get to us from then is really big, then wont the first things we would hear from them, be like their first radio broadcasts ever?

    I mean I would assume that the frst thing that aliens would hear from us would be early radio broadcasts, wouldnt the first thing we hear from anyone be the same?

  69. And even if it doesn't happen.. by LrdHlmt · · Score: 1

    I think SETI should be a permanent project of man kind. SETI's search is not merely science, it is a philosophical matter of the highest importance.

    The day this happens will change the way minkind think's forever.

  70. Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by GoatChunks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been wondering this...and all of you people that think you're smart might be able to figure this out for me. SETI uses radio telescopes to search for E.T., right? Now, I understand that these radio telescopes don't just search for AM/FM radio signals, but basically waves within the full broadcast spectrum. So they're looking for AM/FM, TV, CB, Wi-Fi, wide band, short, wave, cell phones, etc. So I guess the basic thinking is that any intelligent race will use radio signals of some sort. How long have humans been using some kind of radio signals? In the general scheme of things, a very brief time. How much longer will we be using them? Is this something that will be with us forever, or will it die out as our technology advances? Assuming our technology will advance, somehow, to exclude broadcast signals, our planet, from space, will become rather quiet. Also assuming that all intelligent life evolves along a similar timeline, we can assume that these other planets will emit radio signals for only a brief period of time. But somehow we're assuming that that time will somehow coincide with our own. It makes finding a needle in a haystack even harder when the damned needle keeps moving around. Enlighten me. How can SETI possibly work? (That said, I do have the SETI@Home software running on all of my machines...so I'm hopeful.)

    1. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by Skavookie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well at the moment electromagnetic waves are the only way we're aware of for transmitting data over such great distances. That's not to say there isn't some other way, but at the moment radio is all we have to work with. So, regardless of whether it's the right track or not, it's the only track available to us. The best we can do is hope that the aliens want to be found and are sending out radio signals for primitive races like us to pick up.

    2. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How can SETI possibly work?"

      Maybe because radio emissions aren't necessarily a result of communication? Lots of machinery generates RF, that's why the FCC has to approve electronic stuff in the USA before it's released.

      "Also assuming that all intelligent life evolves along a similar timeline, we can assume that these other planets will emit radio signals for only a brief period of time."

      We can't assume anything, we haven't met anybody else. Besides, even if we invent sub-space inverse tachyon communicators, who's to say radio would ever die out? It'll always be useful for something.

      I agree it's a long shot, but what's the harm in looking? Dismissing stuff is a lot easier than searching for what might not exist. Life would be more primitive here if the former happened routinely.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by PalmerEldritch42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I fully agree with you, but consider that as our tech increases, we will (obviously) be aware of the new tech. Thus, once we come up with the next groundbreaking communications method, we can start looking for that as well. So now, we are looking for radio waves, maybe in 20 years, we'll all be communicating with psions or something, and someone will make a telescope that can look for those, too. Then our range of possible encounters will balloon. As we continue to develop new tech, we will continue to attain the ability to find those others out there using that as well as the older stuff.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.

      :wq!

    4. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Informative
      How long have humans been using some kind of radio signals?

      To answer your rhetorical question, it was Hitlers speech at the Olympics held in Munich in 1936. It was the first radio broadcast strong enough to make it into space.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by Epistax · · Score: 1

      I still wear pants, but they're very old technology.

    6. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by leonardluen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      or maybe when we switch over to unencryptable-uninterceptable quantum cryptography for all communications...and cable tv for our tv signals...and wired phones. it is possible with current technology for us to use means of communication that are undetectable now.

      random noise from machinery would likely appear the same as random noise from a star.

    7. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by fredrated · · Score: 1

      According an article in the Scientific American a year or two ago, unless ET is specifically aiming an extremely high powered signal in our direction, there is no way we will be ably to detect anything more than a few light years away. Radio, TV etc. are initially too weak and attenuate to fast to be detectable very far away.

      By 'high powered', they meant something like seven times the total energy output of the united states. Seems unlikely anything is wasting that kind of energy.

      FredRated
      Rate not lest you be rated.

    8. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by GoatChunks · · Score: 1

      I see your point. We're working with what we have. I guess it's better than the alternative of hopping from planet to planet and seeing if anyone is home.

    9. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      Random noise from machinery would likely appear the same as random noise from a star, but such things tend to generate noise that is cyclic.

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    10. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "or maybe when we switch over to unencryptable-uninterceptable quantum cryptography for all communications...and cable tv for our tv signals...and wired phones. it is possible with current technology for us to use means of communication that are undetectable now."

      I can see a massive move to it, but total extinction? 'Undetectable' isn't the end all be all goal of radio or any other form of communication. You wouldn't want 'undetectable' if you're sending out an SOS. The nice thing about radio is that it's easy to generate. I don't know how one would go about building a quantum transmitter on a desert island with only the wreckage of a plane for materials. On top of that, so long as RF is being produced in some form (such as machine interferrence like I mentioned earlier) there'll always be some need to have radio sensitive equipment. Heck, just thinking about RFID makes me think that technology's not going anywhere.

      "random noise from machinery would likely appear the same as random noise from a star."

      No, I don't think so. At least I wouldn't use the word 'likely'. RF noise generated by equipment has a pattern. I imagine an influence on that patern is the direct result of how AC works. Every 60th' of a second, something happens. Patterns in nature aren't so, pardon the term, mechanical.

      *Sigh* we won't find any of this out until we meet somebody.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by IcePop456 · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, they are searching specific frequencies where background radiation is the lowest(around Hydrogen). They are looking for gausian dristribuitions, not necessarily the specific encoding/transmission mechanism. When we broadcast on a specific frequency, such as 100.3KHz, there is some power at 100.2KHz, and some at 100.0KHz. If we were to do a frequencey sweep around this frequency you would see a power distribution centered at 100.3KHz (Bell curve). This would indicate a possible signal being generated. Naturally many things emmit radiation at certain frequencies, but if we use the SETI logic, aliens would be inclined tobroadcast in the spectrum where the universe is the most quiet and this should be our best chance of detecting it. Right now, I think they are just looking at power levels and not trying to figure out what the data is.

    12. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by lawpoop · · Score: 1
      I think the SETI idea comes from a 1950 sci-fi mindset about aliens and out space. The aliens are Like Us, where we are western scientists. It's a linear view of civilization, not unlike sim-earth or something, where first you have one-celled organisms, multi-cellular organisms, then animals, then intelligents, then civilization, bronze age, iron age, radio age, etc.

      This is the same reasoning as the great chain of being, where, starting from rocks, then going on to plants and animals, the only thing above man is angels, who live in heaven (now known to be outer space). Since they are more advanced than use, they are a race of humble geniuses quietly pursuing knowledge and understanding, like any advanced civilization, where as we miserable humans, stuck on this God-forsaken (literally) chaotic, changing rock, are just one step up from the slime that our bodies are made out of and are on the brink of self-annihilation.

      It all depends on whether you consider aliens Like-Us or Not-Like-Us. Scientific knowledge is scientific knowledge, but when scientists start day dreaming, they tell stories that are quite similar to stories people have been telling for thousands of years.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    13. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The problem is that even our most powerful radio emmissions today are not capable of being received with our technology today more than a light-year away.

      And when I say "most powerful radio emmissions," I mean highly-focused radio beams from large dishes like Arecibo or over-the-horizon military search radar. The non-directional radio buzz from PCs, microwave ovens, cellphones, etc. are nothing in comparison.

      Radio reception SETI assumes ETI have radio transmission devices more powerful than any we have today by several orders of magnitude.

      Optical SETI dramatically reduces the amount of power required to be detected over the same distance by allowing more directional transmission. Also I we can achieve optical pulses of much higher power than we can with radio pulses.

      The challenge here is that higher power through directionality means a smaller search window at any point. It is a power/time tradeoff.

    14. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      as do stars...or rather former stars.
      ever hear of a pulsar?

    15. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Optical SETI makes a lot more sense than radio SETI. Transmission and reception are more directional, as well there being much less terrestrial impulse noise in optical versus radio to increase reception SNR.

    16. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      Do I detect a note of sarcasm? And how exactly is random noise the same as cyclic noise? If the cyclic noise turns out to be a pulsar, so be it. Either way, it would be an interesting discovery.

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    17. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by joeykiller · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Years ago I read a few books by Erich von Däniken. I can't say I believe a lot of his theories, but I remember one point he made which made a lot of sense to me:

      Basically he said it was naive to be listening to radio signals, and his reasoning was like yours (how long will we continue using such a techology?). He wanted to explore other alternatives, such as telepathy. Now, I don't believe in telepathy, but I thought his point was good.

      Ironically, the man who wanted to explore telepathy is a founding member of SETI.

    18. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      i am not really trying to be sarcastic, just saying that you can get both random and cyclic noise from nature.

      i guess it may very well turn out that cyclic or random noise from a machine is differentiatable from the cyclic or random noise of other natural objects

    19. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. Maybe you're confusing RADIO with ELECTRO-MAGNETIC. The first is a subset of the second.

    20. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

      There is the possibility, and the hope, that if/when we evolve beyond radio transmissions, we may still transmit signals that we perceive as detectable by other civilizations if for no other reason to establish contact. With that said, perhaps these other civilizations if more advanced then us, would follow the same line of thinking.

    21. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      The Drake equation takes account of this problem, which is the "window" problem - at some point, an intelligent species is likely to stop transmitting, leaving a short window of time in which to communicate with them. The thing is, most SETI programs are not looking for incidental transmissions (things not intended for interstellar communication), but intentional beacons (basically shout-outs) from other civilizations who want to communicate with us. One reason might be that they'd evolve beyond a point where communication is possible (i.e., in Vingean terms, they'd Transcend beyond the Singularity). For a fictional account of this aspect of the problem, see Lem's Fiasco. Other reasons: they'd give up, governments would come into power who would think it a waste of money, they'd have an economic, ecological, or social collapse and lack the resources to continue transmitting, etc. The idea is that given galactic scales, the odds are pretty good not only that someone's out there, but that enough are out there that there's someone minority nutcase species like us that is interested in radio, and capable of using it, but is also interested in sending beacons out to other interested parties.

    22. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      maybe there would never be total extinction, but if we reduce how much radio signals we output it could very well become difficult to detect from interstellar distances and indeed right now i doubt humans would reduce how much RF we are using at this time unless some vastly new technology comes out that makes it obselete. but that doesn't mean that some alien's version of the FCC isn't more restrictive on how much RF they can output. they could very well be there and be technologically advanced, but just aren't outputting enough RF for us to detect.

      there indeed cyclic signals in the heavens, certain collapsed stars rotating very fast have a very regular patern to them...almost "mechanical"...and even gravitational wobbles induced by a planet orbiting a star appear on a very regular cycle, though i think most of these don't occur in the subsecond range.

    23. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by MlBruehlly · · Score: 1

      If the first radio transmission was in 1936 (68 years ago), doesn't that put the wavefront of the Earth's oldest radio communications only 68 light years away from us? Light from Earth's closest star, Proxima Centauri, reaches us after 4.28 years. In other words, unless these aliens live with 68 light years, they won't be listening to us for a LONG time... (BTW, Pluto is 5.5 light hours away).

    24. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by Mudcathi · · Score: 1
      Maybe because radio emissions aren't necessarily a result of communication? Lots of machinery generates RF, that's why the FCC has to approve electronic stuff in the USA before it's released.

      Great - so our historic first contact with an alien civilization might just happen because we notice that their garbage compactor is a bit noisy.

      --

      "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

    25. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Great - so our historic first contact with an alien civilization might just happen because we notice that their garbage compactor is a bit noisy."

      Playing a game of hide and seek, I was once caught because the dude heard me fart.

      I wish I could find some way to relate this to the topic, but all I can say is your comment reminded me of that memory.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    26. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by siduri · · Score: 1
      Seth's answered this in other interviews. Here's an excerpt from one I did with him. The question was "Our own civilization has only been using radio to transmit messages for less than a hundred years. Now these messages are increasingly being delivered in a digital, often encrypted form that is practically indistinguishable from white noise. What sense does it make to search the radio spectrum for such old-fashioned messages that we ourselves have only bothered using during this brief window?"

      His answer:

      I mean, if you look at the kind of signals that we're currently using, sort of spread-spectrum signals and things like that, they're very complicated, and they're completely unlike the kind of things we look for in SETI. The kind of things we look for in SETI are signals that are just what are called narrow-band signals, that are on one spot on the radio dial. So they take all the energy of the transmitter and pump it all into one small frequency range. Okay? You with me?

      Siduri: Yeah.

      Seth: All right. The advantage of that is that it makes it really easy to find the signal because all the energy is in a small band so it really stands out as a big spike of energy. Whereas if you spread it out over five megahertz, like a TV signal, then the energy's spread all over the band and it's very hard to find. But on the other hand, the actual signals that we use are spread out, more and more. And ET will be at least as advanced as we are, so you might say, "Well, why would they make those narrow-band signals?"

      And the answer is, probably: most of the time, they don't. For their own internal communications they probably wouldn't do that. But if you have a beacon, which you want to hear at great distance--if for some reason they want to get in touch, or they're sending the galactic weather report, whatever, GPSs--there's lots of things that would have narrow-band components in the signal. So that's what we look for. But Zach has a point.

      Siduri: So the assumption is that they would have to be kind of trying to get in touch.

      Seth: They might have to be trying. Or, I'm not sure I would even go that far. If you asked Marconi a hundred years ago, what would he think the radio signals would be like in the year 2001, or whaddya think people will be using this technology for in the year 2001, he wouldn't have had a very good idea. He probably wouldn't have gotten it right--not much of it, anyway. So for us to say what kind of signals ET uses, a hundred thousand years ahead of us, what kind of signals he's producing--you could guess if you want. Probably not a very good guess.

      I mean, one thing you always need is high-powered radar to look for incoming comets. Long period comets. Cause they can come in, and as you know, ruin your whole day. Land in Yucatan. But I mean, he has a point. It's just that we're looking for the signals that are easy to find.

    27. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by nido · · Score: 1

      We can't assume anything, we haven't met anybody else.

      Yeah, 'cause CNN hasn't told us so.

      Ingo Swann, founding member of the government-financed remote viewing program (ran for nearly 20 years, then dumped when the soviet union dissolved - "yeah, never worked, but we spent millions of dollars and twenty years finding that out". Ingo says gov't bureaucrats canceled the program because they were scared of being mind-read.) self published a book titled Penetration: The Question of Human and Extra-Terrestrial Telepathy... In it he talks about bases on the moon, human-ET interaction, etc. Why do you think NASA left multiple complete lunar missions on the ground?

      From Ingo's perspective, suppression of the existence of ETs comes down to Power. To keep a hierarchical society, the majority of our species must be kept unaware of certain powers which are endemic to our species.

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    28. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by waveclaw · · Score: 1
      "Also assuming that all intelligent life evolves along a similar timeline, we can assume that these other planets will emit radio signals for only a brief period of time."


      We can't assume anything, we haven't met anybody else. Besides, even if we invent sub-space inverse tachyon communicators, who's to say radio would ever die out? It'll always be useful for something.


      Like setting up giant, solar-powered, solar-obiting transmitters to communicate a message to emerging alien civilizations?
      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    29. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by khallow · · Score: 1
      Why do you think NASA left multiple complete lunar missions on the ground?

      Because the primary purpose of the lunar missions - to "one up" the USSR - had been accomplished. There was no further political need for lunar missions.

    30. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by James+Turpin · · Score: 1
      A slightly more advanced civilization would have quantum computer. In order to network quantum computers (quantumly, rather than classicly), they would find some way of sending coherent quantum signals over long distances (maybe just something like fiber optics). The same type of channels can then be used for communication. If these aliens value personal privacy, they would prefer to use quantum channels that use quantum cryptography. (Quantum cryptography signals can not be intercepted without one or both parties realizing it, but they require a quantum channel.) They would therefore adopt these hardwired quantum channels for private communications. Then only intentionally public signals would use radio signals. Most of these radio waves would be phased out eventually because all the aliens will have "cable" (or quantum channels, rather).

      Maybe they will still have some wireless devices. But they will be streamlined to take advantage of closely spaced hard-wired devices, like cell-phone towers. It will be very difficult for us to decipher these signals light-years away.

      And they could conclude that radio waves are an interstellar security risk, and stealthily abandon them altogether.

      --
      Mathematics is not a crime.
    31. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, but those radio waves they did use would still be travelling through space.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It'll always be useful for something."

      Yeah, so is morse code. :-P

      "I agree it's a long shot, but what's the harm in looking?"

      13.5M for one telescope array?

      Maybe the aliens would _want_ to find us if we took care of our own better than we do.

    33. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Years ago I read a few books by Erich von Däniken. I can't say I believe a lot of his theories, but I remember one point he made which made a lot of sense to me"

      I really like von Daniken. He receives a lot of criticism from the scientific community, but sometimes its the so-called "madmen" that challenge our thinking and actually sometimes get it right (their theories). Just think, only a few hundred years ago, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for professing that there was nothing special about the Earth in God's eyes since the cosmos was full of planets with living beings inhabiting them.

      I like to think of von Daniken as a smartass sitting in class trying to show up the professor. Kinda like how he likes to point at ancient Eygptian paintings supposedly indicating that they had light bulbs and then points out that certain passage ways would be impossible to light with reflective mirrors (the preferred theory).

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    34. Re:Is SETI Even On The Right Track? by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      Oh, that old chestnut. There's really very little evidence that Bruno's cosmological views had much (if anything) to do with his execution.

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  71. non radio signals by bobsalt · · Score: 1

    radio is too slow, what is it that the sun produces that travels way faster than light and goes through everything? if anyone is out there, thats what they are using...what ever happened with that experimental thing they buried 1/2 mile underground filled with water to catch those things the sun produces?

    my prediction? we will learn how to use that and will be connected to countless civs' (if they out there)


    1. Re:non radio signals by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      You're probably referring to neutrinos, which are still bound by the speed of light.

      Tachyons are hypothetical particles that always move faster than light -- none have ever been observed by humans. According to some theories, they may, in fact, be unobservable.

    2. Re:non radio signals by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      radio is too slow, what is it that the sun produces that travels way faster than light and goes through everything? if anyone is out there, thats what they are using...what ever happened with that experimental thing they buried 1/2 mile underground filled with water to catch those things the sun produces?

      my prediction? we will learn how to use that and will be connected to countless civs' (if they out there)

      Tachyons? They're the only class of things that moves faster than light and can carry information. We've not only yet to observe any of them but half the physicists flat out claim they don't exist. Another half simply state that they're not prohibited. There's always the possiblity that we're already seeing them in positrons which would be electroncs moving backwards in time. If they do move backwards in time, then all sorts of causality issues appear.

      I suspect you mean neutrinos which we are trying to detect frm supernova with water filled tanks. Sorry to break this to you, but they move at the speed of light also or perhaps even a little slower.

      future advances in communications may be possible, perhaps even in FTL speeds, but I doubt that it will because of anything we are trying to detect curently. Such breakthroughs will need a change in the overall way we view the physics of the universe.

    3. Re:non radio signals by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      You're probably thinking of neutrinos, but they do not travel faster than the speed of light. In fact, if it as is believed and their mass is non-zero, they travel slower than the speed of light. The only faster-than-light particle I am aware of is the tachyon, but its existence is purely hypothetical at this point.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    4. Re:non radio signals by lazyl · · Score: 1

      radio is too slow, what is it that the sun produces that travels way faster than light and goes through everything? if anyone is out there, thats what they are using...what ever happened with that experimental thing they buried 1/2 mile underground filled with water to catch those things the sun produces? my prediction? we will learn how to use that and will be connected to countless civs' (if they out there)

      I think you're talking about neutrinos but they don't travel faster then the speed of light. They just travel very close to it. The only other thing we use underground detectors for (that I know of) is gravitational waves but they're still theoretical; we haven't seen any yet. But they don't travel faster then the speed of light either.

      As far as I know, the only thing that can travel faster then light is information between quantum entangled particles. But we can't use that for SETI because you need to establish a communiation channel before trasmitting anything.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
  72. BOINC by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    Contact could have been expected by 2010, but release of the BOINC software has delayed the seti@home project by at least 10 yers.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  73. here by hyperstation · · Score: 1

    at this year's snowshoe institute at snowshoe in wv, dr. seth shostak of SETI will be speaking.

    it's on july 31st, i'd love to go but dunno about fundage...

  74. why lag time is significant by Fratz · · Score: 1

    If anyone's played Starwars Galaxies, they know that it's hard to interact with any aliens if your ping is too high.

    --
    -- Fratz, human
  75. Good God Man! by dannybcn · · Score: 2

    What is this going to do to the Dept. of Homeland Security??? We've spent billions on setting up global war theaters! and now this?? what's the budget going to be for a universal war theater?? Get me Tom Ridge on the phone...

  76. Outlandish claims by netglen · · Score: 1

    What an outlandish claim. This type of announcement reminds me of similar claims by Doomsday Churchs on precise dates when the Earth will be destroyed.

  77. BWAHAHAHAHA by arvindn · · Score: 4, Informative
    Reminds me of a joke:

    Museum tour guide: This fossil is two million and nine years old.

    Surprised visitor: How can you tell the date so accurately?

    Guide: Easy. I've been working here nine years, and it was two million years old when I joined.

    My point is, the Drake equation has so many variables that we can't even get a ballpark estimate of that any prediction based on it could easily be off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    1. Re:BWAHAHAHAHA by man_ls · · Score: 1

      the Drake Equation is less of a real equation and more of a scientific conversation starter...it's at the core of a lot of science and psuedo-science related to ET and SETI type stuff, but has little to do with the actual work being done in the field at this point in time.

      Similar to how Isaac Asimov is frequently credited as being the creator of intelligent robotics, AI, etc. with his "Three Laws" even though he did not actually develop a product with them.

  78. Aliens... by ixnaay · · Score: 1

    If there are aliens on remote planets, it seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that they are at the same technological level that we are (either higher or lower), and since all of the pseudo-science / probability people say that there is an enormous chance that there is in fact life on other planets, it follows that if there is life 'out there', some of the civilizations must be extremely advanced compared to ours.

    In that case, it is hard to believe that they are not aware of us. This is where you need to put on your tin foil hat. If they are aware of us, and have not contacted us, they clearly do not want us to contact them / be aware of them. If they have technology vastly superior to ours, isn't it possible they could filter out any signs of their existance - or even 'fine tune' our perceptions of the universe beyond removing just signs of their own existence?

  79. Hey Einstein: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you put the "nt" in the subject so people know not to open your comment. I realize its a difficult concept to grasp, but if you think about it for a while, it should make sense.

  80. Crowded galaxy by Shimmer · · Score: 1

    From the article: "Shostak came up with an estimate of between 10,000 and 1 million radio transmitters in the galaxy."

    The Drake Equation is just a fancy way of saying SWAG (silly wild-ass guess). Personally, I find this SWAG to be wild high by several orders of magnitude.

    Personally, my guess is that our galaxy has 0-5 other species actively transmitting.

    --
    The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
  81. The poster is a twit. by baadfood · · Score: 1

    Theres a big difference between "make contact" and "detect"

  82. Re:Bigger Deal: Singularity or Discovery of Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two Stargate episodes: you must have missed the pilot for the new season.

  83. MOD PARENT UP by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

    good stuff, i've often pondered that myself, what if they're sending signals via something like "sub-space" (sorry to get Trekkie on ya, i just didn't know how else to put it)

    --
    May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
  84. Let me be the first. by minotaurcomputing · · Score: 1

    And let me be the first to welcome our new alien overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted /. personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground mineral caves.

  85. Contact protocols by darth_MALL · · Score: 1

    I am wondering what (if any) protocols have been formalised for how 'exactly' we will choose to interact with ET's. I read an article somwhere that plans were already drawn up covering what to do in the event of contact, but my brain is broken today, and i can't put a decent google together. Anyone know of these contingencies?

    1. Re:Contact protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brookings Institute
      hide the facts from public
      spread disinformation to obscure truth

  86. The real question is... by nebulus4 · · Score: 1

    "Of course once we find the first aliens there's the question of can we decode their signals, would they spot our reply, and what's the lag time."

    No.. the real question is whether they'll be interested in destroying our planet after they spot our reply.

    --
    "It would be wrong to refuse to face the fact that everything is fundamentally sick and sad."
  87. Reply? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    While I like the idea of sending out ships with information, I do have to wonder about the wisdom of telling others exactly where we live. If we sent a ship out that did replies, I would have no issues.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  88. Hail to the chimp! by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

    The idea of meeting aliens within 20 years is absurd. So many things can happend within twenty-years to change what may or may not be a precised prediction. For example, lets say a meteor slams into the alien's space ship due to USA's laser defense system which they had fun to use shooting at meteors and breaking them into smaller pieces.

    Getting a monkey to become president with a cigar and rollerskates.

    That should take about 20 years right?

  89. "can we decode their signals" by nusratt · · Score: 1

    not without permission from the Alpha Centauri RIAA

  90. find ets' by 2020 by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    If we havent decimated our existence or environment by that time. On that note, it will be interesting to know if the ETs want us to find them. It's very likely they know we are here, and want nothing to do with us other than observe how we have pretty much fcked up 60 billion years of evolution in 100 years.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:find ets' by 2020 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      60 billion years of evolution

      And here I thought the Universe was only 20 billion years old or so. Did we get a head start on the whole evolution thing while I wasn't looking? ;-)

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  91. Social Implications by Omega1045 · · Score: 1

    Thinks of what will happen when our belief systems are overturned by the fact that another intelligence exists in the universe.

    Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

    --

    Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    1. Re:Social Implications by danratherfan · · Score: 1

      I don't think it will pose too big a threat to most people's belief systems. Even the neanderthals are believed to have religious persuasions judging from their burial ceremonies. I don't think religion is going to kick the bucket because of some ol' alien. People will always want to believe they're something more than meat-sack automata, and perhaps they're right.

  92. That's a coincidence by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    That is exactly what I would want to transmit to the aliens.

  93. Re: Lag Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure hope that we're not the HPBs of the universe.

  94. Assumptions by Schlaegel · · Score: 1

    There must be ETs for us to find them in 20 years.

    That is quite an assumption in the headline.

  95. Allien fobia by Traa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Though you might have been kidding about beeing affraid about the evil alliens coming to visit and do evil things to us like take away our freedom (or worse, steal our MP3's), this does seem to be a bit of an unfortunate trend in modern thinking. Just because they look different, think different and have a different believe system we don't have to instantly nuke them when they are within reach.

    I for one welcome our new green-multi-mouthed homosapienphobic omnivore doomsday-device-wielding neighbours!

    1. Re:Allien fobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully they'll treat us better than Western culture treated the "barbarians" we found in the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Allien fobia by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      Discovering aliens could lead to a growth of understanding and tolerance amongst the Human ethnicities.

      Yeah, your skin may be a little darker or lighter than mine, but look at that thing over there with the tentacles.

      Finally, someone everyone on Earth can lynch together.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    3. Re:Allien fobia by ovit · · Score: 1

      I don't have "Alien Phobia"... I have "Alien Homo Phobia"...

      Tony

  96. The reason aliens have never contacted us.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that they've observed us first.

  97. Re:Bigger Deal: Singularity or Discovery of Aliens by freqres · · Score: 1

    SCO would have found another source of revenue.

    --
    Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
  98. Bet they find a book....... by xtype2.5 · · Score: 1

    Titled "To Serve Man"

  99. What if... by farzadb82 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The signals picked up are actually our own from twenty years prior ?

    Seriously, has anyone considered the possibility that the only intelligent life-forms in the universe maybe humans in past, present and future form ?

  100. contact by man_ls · · Score: 1

    Reply to them like in the movie Contact.

    Even if we can't necessarely interpret their signals, if we send their own signal back to them intact and with some sideband or appended information about us in it (or even just the signal) they'll be able to know it wasn't just a coincidence.

  101. 9/11 Report (your tag) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't buy it, just download it for free.

    1. Re:9/11 Report (your tag) by ahaning · · Score: 1

      You [probably] paid for it.

      Get it here.

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
  102. The Problem with SETI by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

    The problem with SETI fanatics is that they assume that aliens are using primitive EM waves to communicate. If EM waves were the only way to communicate, we would be bombarded with intelligent signals from all directions. I have a little advice for SETI. Aliens can communicate instantly using their knowledge of the non-local nature of the universe. Get a clue.

  103. Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By 2020 Martian Bacteria will have wiped out all higher lifeforms on Earth, just like they did on Mars!

  104. Gawds, I hate the f***ing Drake equation by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
    Why do people continually trot it out like some sort of alchemical wonder? It's a Probability 101 equation composed almost entirely of unknown variables. I mean, we can't even be positive about N, the number of stars in the Milky Way.

    Shostak admits that there are myriad uncertainties surrounding his prediction

    Yeah, no kidding, Edison.

    When I plug *my* misapthropic numbers into the bloody bloody bloody bastard Drake bloody equation, I basically prove even WE don't exist. Plug in the dewey-eyed, rabbit hugging optimist numbers, and you get aliens already knocking on the door and introducing themselves as your new enighbors.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Gawds, I hate the f***ing Drake equation by Surt · · Score: 1

      If the numbers you plug in produce a number less than one, you've estimated too low somewhere.

      There is a lower bound for number of stars in milky way at about 100 billion.

      And the fraction with planets needs to be at least around 20% given the extrasolar planetary observations we've made.

      You can make a plausible estimate of a lower bound for the transmit time span based on us.

      The other fractions are still pretty unknown.

      One of the reasons the equation is interesting is that you can make very reasonable sounding low estimates of all the variables and still come up with a large estimated number of currently transmitting civilizations in the galaxy.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Gawds, I hate the f***ing Drake equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The typical presentation of the Drake Equation simplifies things in ways that cause misestimations, unfortunately. An improved version would read:

      N* fp ne fl fm fi fc fL

      For number of stars, fraction with planets, number of habitable planets, fraction that evolve life, fraction that evolve multicellular life, fraction that evolve tool-using intelligence, fraction that communicate, and fraction of communicant survival.

      N* is 100 billion, probably.

      fp is the fraction with planets. 100% is a reasonable high-end SWAG. 100 billion in play.

      ne is is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life. I gotta go with .75, on the basis that we've found a lot of planetary systems fundamentally different that old Sol's. 75 billion in play.

      fl -- life appeared on Earth almost as soon as it could. Some estimates based on that say .33 odds. Let's use 1.0 anyway. 75 billion.

      fm -- multicellular life, however, didn't show up for three billion years, and evolved only from one genetic line. The odds here are thus probably very low. I'd say one-in-a-million (if anything, an overestimate). 75,000 planets with multicellular life.

      fi -- There was no evolution of intelligent tool-users during the hundreds-of-million-years age of amphibians, the age of the dinosaurs went hundreds of million years with hundreds of species of bipedal creatures with hands that didn't develop tool use, and with the one (significant) exception of humans, apes are a very unsucessful type of animal. One-in-ten-thousand odds, maybe -- 7.5 planets.

      Go with 100% for fc, and one billion years for fL, and you're still leaving us in a galaxy empty of communicating intelligent life other than ourselves.

      Note the original Drake Equation assumption, which doesn't break out fm from fi, uses 1.0 for the fi value. Clearly these people didn't undestand evolutionary history, and how much of a fluke a tool-using intelligence really is. Stephen Jay Gould tried to make this point on the unlikelyhood of the evolution of intelligence in several of his articles/books.

  105. Good news bad news... by sterno · · Score: 1

    The good news: soon we'll discover the radio signals of an advanced alien civilization.

    The bad news: their messages will likely be encrypted beyond comprehension so that we don't copy their programming and distribute it on P2P networks.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Good news bad news... by PapaBoojum · · Score: 1


      The good news: soon we'll discover the radio signals of an advanced alien civilization.

      The bad news: their messages will likely be encrypted beyond comprehension so that we don't copy their programming and distribute it on P2P networks.


      The worse news: the combined forces of the ET-RIAA and ET-MPAA armadas will immediately singularity-nuke the Earth for illegally downloading the copyrighted ET signals.

  106. Not misleading by andyrut · · Score: 3
    Whether or not there's any signal to pick up is another matter entirely...

    It is another matter, but Shostak also addressed it in his prediction:
    Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates.
    So not only doese he think we'll have the capacity to detect the transmissions, he also predicts that the transmissions are just waiting there for us to pick up, based on the Drake Equation.
    1. Re:Not misleading by Dread_ed · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >devil's advocate

      So what we have here, if I am not mistaken, is not science but a new religion.

      In other words, the people at SETI who believe like Shostak does are assuming the existence of something for which there is no proof.

      Sure, they use scientific tools in their work; they couldn't get by without them. They may apply the scientific method to problems that they encounter but their core motivation is the search for something that they already believe exists. They are using faith in something (without a shred of proof) as justification to spend millions of dollars, countless man hours, and TONS of processor time (SETI@home).

      Seems like a total waste of time to me. (That is unless they find some!) /devil's advocate

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    2. Re:Not misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he also predicts that the transmissions are just waiting there for us to pick up, based on the Drake Equation.

      But the Drake Equation is meaningless! It's just a fancy way of saying "this is why we don't know if there's anyone out there".

      Look, an equation with more than one unknown in it cannot be solved in isolation. And the only way we're going to fill in enough of the unknowns in the Drake Equation for it to be useable to predict the existence of alien civilisations will be, uh, to go out and discover how many alien civilisations there are out there. At which point we may just lose interest in the matter...

    3. Re:Not misleading by mateomiguel · · Score: 1

      [blockquote]They may apply the scientific method to problems that they encounter but their core motivation is the search for something that they already believe exists. They are using faith in something (without a shred of proof) as justification to spend millions of dollars, countless man hours, and TONS of processor time (SETI@home).[/blockquote]


      Them and every other human on the face of the planet.

  107. I'm with Chris Rock by dg41 · · Score: 1

    Chris Rock once said in a stand-up bit that the reason was simple why we haven't made contact with aliens: "bad news travels fast." "They fight over black and white! We're purple"

  108. already here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Based on extensive information that is available, much published by our own Government, they are already here: You be the judge
    1. Re:already here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You might be a RedNeck if:

      Your sister is the third generation of women in your family to conceive a baby as a result of an alien abduction.

  109. DUKE NUKEM FOREVER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ahhhhh hahahahahah

  110. aliens by cmdr_forge · · Score: 1

    what makes us so sure that they want to contact us? Calvin and Hobbes said it best "the surest sign of intelligent life is the fact they have not contacted us" I think if there were species in our sector of the galaxy or cosmos they would have sense our presense and or at least heard our radio signals....

  111. Next year's April 1st RFC by trainsnpep · · Score: 2, Funny
    That's it...make a new protocol:

    A Lightweight Extraterrestrial Intercommunication Network Transmission Protocol. ALIENTP

    Now, ALIENTP is a protocol for transmission of data through high bandwidth - high latency (anywhere from 5s to 500 million years) networks....ALIENTP is composed of three basic components:

    The HUMAN, the SPACE and the EXTRATERRESTRIAL. The HUMAN (Huge Uber-Manlike Android Noisemaker) sends a type of EM AM signal through SPACE (Some Place Allocated for Cosmic Entities) to the EXTRATERRESTRIAL (Ex-Xenophobia Technical Race of Aliens Trying to Extract Ridiculous Rural Eccentrics Solely for Tests Requiring Initial Anal Lubrication).....


    I'm sick. I know

    --
    --<Mike>--
    1. Re:Next year's April 1st RFC by antispam_ben · · Score: 1
      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    2. Re:Next year's April 1st RFC by selderrr · · Score: 1

      that's a lame protocol : way to flacky. I suggest we develop pigeon spacesuits and a very very very huge BFG and we have SPLUD protocol (Space Pigeon Longdistance User Datagram).

  112. lag by Squirrley · · Score: 0

    That would suck to try to play a game of quake III with these guys....

    --
    Go on, be afraid. Encourage the terrorists
  113. 50% in 20? Try 25% in 45. by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The Foresight Exchange, a reputation-based betting market predicts a 24-27% chance of intelligent extra-terrestrial life being detected by 2050. That includes radio signals from space, pyramids on Mars, and aliens landing on the Whitehouse lawn. If Seth Shostak is correct, then he can make a real killing of sorts on this market.

    And if you don't mind a little neo-liberal dig here, the unrestrained market is a superior rational process to the scientific method for estimating likelihood of events occuring. Especially events which involve a great deal of uncertainty, divergence of opinion, and emotion.

    Having said that, Mr. Shostak is boldly taking a stand by stating any sort of probability at all and I approve of it. It's very possible that this new information will change singificantly the odds on the Foresight Exchange as the traders digest it.

  114. Flaw in Drake Equation by uncadonna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've thought this for a long time. Maybe this is the occasion to get this idea across to people who might be interested.

    While the equation is clearly true since it's basically redundant, it may not elucidate the problem very well. This is because some of the terms may be nonlinearly coupled.

    If interstellar propagation of a technological species is possible, the rate of emergence of such species is not independent of whether such species have emerged in the past. There is an ecological competition between hypothetical spacefaring species. Unless two such species emerge simultaneously and accomodate each other, the emergence of one will essentially foreclose the emergence of another.

    If the rate of formation of stable technological civilizations is sufficiently low, and the rate of interstellar spread of such civilizations is sufficiently high, there will only be time for one such civilization to emerge per galaxy. By the time the second one could emerge, the first one would have filled the entire niche.

    In this scenario, by virtue of the fact that we have emerged, we can conclude that no stable competitors have emerged yet.

    In fact, my intuition is that the universe is in precisely this regime, and therefore that we are very unlikely to succeed in SETI.

    --
    mt
    1. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by Jarnis · · Score: 1

      There is the small issue of the size of galaxy. Even if we'd start to colonize the whole thing exponentially at the speed of light (the theoretical max by current knowledge), it would take considerable time to fill up the galaxy.

      Main catch with Drake is that we do not know how common it is for technologically advanced civilizations to wipe themselves out. If 99% of civilizations fail the jump off their planet to colonization and/or are unable to stabilize population growth to levels that are sustainable by the homeworld, the natural selection would never get to galactic level. Earth is a pretty damn nice 'womb' for life. Space is HARSH. We are still just bipedal monkeys with some nice toys, completely depending on earth itself.

      Galaxy could be filled by life, but just about nobody gets past the 'split the atom -> learn interstellar travel' bit. Earth has been bit too close of being nuked to a wasteland for quite a while, and we are still way off from the start of colonization of the galaxy. By thousands of years - probably tens of thousands.

      If every technologically advanced race has to survive tens of thousands of years without wiping their own planet and/or without killing themselves off by stripmining/outgrowing the available resources, it may be that communicating technological civilizations are common, but the jump to a galactic one is almost impossible. So every species is confined to their own limited niche of their home planet. The gulf outside is just ... damn big thing to 'evolve out of'.

    2. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      No, the main catches with the Drake equation are that it involves many assumptions and its accuracy cannot be verified or even determined with current technology.

      One other objection I just thought of to the parent's point- there is already an environmentalist/preservationist movement on Earth, why can't there be one in alien civilizations? Why would they immediately sterilize and strip-mine every planet they came across? If we encountered an alien organism that was roughly equivalent to ourselves (capable of communicating with us and on a similar technological level), would we try to conquer or eradicate them, or would we try to establish diplomatic and commercial ties with them? Would they, if they found us first? We really have no experience on which to make these judgements.

    3. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by uncadonna · · Score: 1
      Maybe. All I'm saying is maybe not.

      What you're proposing is the implicit presumption of the usual SETI argument. That presumption is not indefensible, but it is a presumption.

      --
      mt
    4. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by mangu · · Score: 1
      Earth has been bit too close of being nuked to a wasteland for quite a while,


      How do you calculate that? Although the "nuclear winter" hypothesis has been used to support that point of view, it's an untested hypothesis, after all.


      I find it unlikely that a nuclear war would have the effect of wiping out humans, or even our technical civilization. This "Mad Max" scenario was based on the supposition that no advanced civilization existed outside of the USA and former USSR. As the growing competition that the USA is facing in India on the software business demonstrates, there are technically advanced centers even in relatively poor countries, which would be spared in a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are too expensive to waste in Third-World countries.

    5. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      In this scenario, by virtue of the fact that we have emerged, we can conclude that no stable competitors have emerged yet.

      True that!

      Space colonists beware, earth has 30 year old moon rockets (currently undergoing restoration). We are the unrivaled champions of space faring worlds.

    6. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If every technologically advanced race has to survive tens of thousands of years without wiping their own planet and/or without killing themselves off by stripmining/outgrowing the available resources, it may be that communicating technological civilizations are common, but the jump to a galactic one is almost impossible. So every species is confined to their own limited niche of their home planet. The gulf outside is just ... damn big thing to 'evolve out of'.

      If you're right SETI becomes much harder because a race takes 200 million years to evolve and then only lasts 10000 years beyond discovering radio.

      You also have to get lucky and not get wiped out by a planet killer asterioid during that time, so after you manage to send a SETI-style "hello" message you have to put together a planetary defense system to survive long enough to hear our reply.

      As they say, "it's the latency, stupid."

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've been beaten to this. It's called the "preemption scenario" (not the preemption doctrine). The idea is that it would take somewhere on the order of tens of millions of years for one space-faring species to colonize the galaxy - which is a small enough fraction of the age of the galaxy's stars to suggest that it should already have happened. But there's a lot of other variables: for instance, it's possible that the sun's population cohort is the first in a heavy-element rich enough environment to evolve life, etc.

    8. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by Ramze · · Score: 1
      I don't recall the Drake equation referring to "space-faring races", but merely intelligent ones at about our level of intelligence. We haven't discovered any reasonable method of faster-than-light travel, and there's no reason to believe any advanced society ever will. It may not be possible. If your version of the universe were true, we'd have each galaxy with its own civilization and each galaxy would either be in peaceful coexistance with other races in other galaxies, or at war with them -- and what a fertile ground the milky way would be having no presence there... seems they'd colonize or invade us rather quickly. I am assuming, of course, that intergalactic travel is about as trivial as interplanetary within a galaxy - but that's because we're talking about science fiction here and anything is possible when you can break the laws of known physics.

      Science Fiction isn't a good indicator of reality. Noone has encountered a worm hole or discovered how a "warp drive" might be created. Even Hawking now believes that black holes lead to nowhere -- just mangle matter and energy, absorb them, and release them in another form over time. If any race advances further than we do, they may be limited to sub-light speeds just as we are. In that case, they'd be unlikely to colonize many star systems -- if any at all. They may only colonize planets in their home system, in which case, they'd only interfere with other intelligent races which may have evolved on those planets within their system -- unlikely but possible.

      That's not to say that it can't happen -- just that you have to make a lot of assumptions about technology we do not have and have no theory on how to create in order to make the leap to "space faring races" that are in competiton with other life forms on other worlds for resources.

      In the unlikely event that a race discovers faster-than-light travel and wishes to colonize every planet that can or will sustain life within their own galaxy, why would they stop there? If they can travel to the far side of their own galaxy easily, why not another galaxy as well? In fact, why not all galaxies? If the population grew exponentially and faster-than-light travel was easy enough, then the only limiting factor would be resources (nearly limitless given they can reach all planets in a galaxy), and the desire of the population to spread out and explore -- except possibly meeting another species that wasn't willing to share resources or wasn't very hospitable.

      We know that life exists here on earth, about how the earth was formed, and how life likely began and evolved. Using those assumptions and our development and use of radio waves, we can make some assumptions to form the Drake equation about how likely a similar advance may occur elsewhere, but there are no variables for unknown technologies and advances. When you add in the variables for "what if we could travel faster than light, or snap our fingers like Q and make everyone turn into characters from Robin Hood?", then you've thrown science out of the equation in favor of science fiction and fantasy. There is no possible way to predict how and when any race could develop interstellar travel (because we don't even know if it's possible beyond ion drives and voyages measured in decades or centuries).

      Radio waves are simple enough to discover after discovering electricity. It makes sense that they would be used for some level of communication by an advanced species given enough time, but interstellar travel isn't something that's so easily discovered. Granted, the planet may one day leave behind radio in favor of global fiber-optics, but I doubt we'll stop using the wireless technology of radio. It's unlikely that another race would either unless they've chosen laser transmission or discovered a way to transmit via entangled particles or gravity waves. We have begun to experiment with quantum transmission, but it's a long way from becoming a standard communication tool if it ever will. Lasers are by nature point-to-

    9. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by radtea · · Score: 1


      I think this reasoning is correct, and indeed from what we know of evolution it is also reasonable.

      We know that life is not too hard to do: it came about _very_ early in the Earth's history, quite probably more than once. Likewise, there are strong suggestions of early life on Mars (and I'm still holding out hopes for Titan and Europa).

      Likewise, various good tricks that life uses have evolved multiple times: wings, eyes, etc. are things that we have good evidence came about independently pretty much as soon as they possibly could.

      Intelligence, on the other hand, is fantasically rare--at most one or two species in the entire history of life on Earth have managed it, and they have all been closely related. The fact that millions of other species that could have (in the sense that they had the same basic neural machinery that we have--a spinal chord, a brain, etc.) evolved intelligence but didn't strongly suggests that the evolutionary path to intelligence is very narrow, and depends on numerous low-probability events, or possibly one very low probability event.

      Unlike flight, it appears that intelligence doesn't give the possessor much of an advantage until the capability is really well-developed. And it appears that the usefulness is strongly restricted to social animals to begin with, cutting down the number of potential intelligent species by a large fraction at the very start.

      So I think as we venture out into the galaxy we will find life everywhere, and intelligence nowhere.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    10. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      We are still just bipedal monkeys with some nice toys, completely depending on earth itself.

      Not exactly. Where did you get this little nugget of misinformation? For the record, you are completely wrong. The human race as a whole has moved beyond these restrictions thousands of years ago.

    11. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by khallow · · Score: 1
      Intelligence, on the other hand, is fantasically rare--at most one or two species in the entire history of life on Earth have managed it, and they have all been closely related. The fact that millions of other species that could have (in the sense that they had the same basic neural machinery that we have--a spinal chord, a brain, etc.) evolved intelligence but didn't strongly suggests that the evolutionary path to intelligence is very narrow, and depends on numerous low-probability events, or possibly one very low probability event.

      I'm not sure about that. I think a number of mammal species qualify as near-sentient. In particular, a number of members of the orders: Primates,Cetacea, and Carnivora.

      Among non-invertebrates, we have the Octopoda order with a couple of sophisticated contenders.

      Only a handful of those species could be considered sentient.

    12. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by axlrosen · · Score: 1

      Sentient, yes. Intelligent, no. We're speaking in the context of radio waves and space travel. We're the only species that has come anywhere close to the kind of communication and reasoning to begin creating technology.

    13. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by geekoid · · Score: 1

      or we can conclude the no stable competitor has found us.

      "In fact, my intuition is that the universe is in precisely this regime, and therefore that we are very unlikely to succeed in SETI."

      in science, intuition is crap.

      do you know how large a galaxy is? It would ne very easy to imagine many species evolving, and never coming into contact with each other.

      Also, if we do detect a sign, the specis may very well be extinct. Finding proof that they existed would be mans greatest discovery.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by uncadonna · · Score: 1
      do you know how large a galaxy is?

      Yup.

      very easy to imagine many species evolving, and never coming into contact with each other.

      Sure, if technology is common and spacefaring isn't economical. That's the presumption I'm questioning.

      If spacefaring is economical, the frontier of the evolving species will probably evolve at a rate that is one or two orders below the physical speed limit, which means the galaxy would be inhabited in order 10^7 years.

      So, if in the rate of emergence of the most rapidly evolving technological species is less than 1/10^7yr, then the first one to persist into the spacefaring phase owns the galaxy, and the other ones never show up.

      I'm not saying I know this to be the case, only that I suspect it to be so. I'm saying it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that the Drake equation and the SETI community totally neglects.

      I actually believe my hypothesis is correct, for what it's worth. I think deep space exploration will be economical in the next 10000 years if the species survives. I'm guessing the galaxy doesn't come up with species as promising as ours often enough that we have any competition that hasn't flamed out already. I hope we survive and win the race. I expect any ETs we run into will be extragalactic and many centuries in the future.

      I can't prove any of this, so by all means keep looking. Just don't hold your breath or anything.

      --
      mt
    15. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      As the growing competition that the USA is facing in India on the software business demonstrates, there are technically advanced centers even in relatively poor countries, which would be spared in a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are too expensive to waste in Third-World countries.

      LOL! Pakistan might not agree with you on that.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    16. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by uncadonna · · Score: 1
      I don't recall the Drake equation referring to "space-faring races", but merely intelligent ones at about our level of intelligence.

      It doesn't. My point is that it should. There are large ranges of the parameter space for which the feasibility of deep space travel is highly relevant, on the grounds of very basic principles of evolutionary biology.

      --
      mt
    17. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by uncadonna · · Score: 1
      You've been beaten to this.

      All my good ideas are like that. Dang.

      Got a reference? Thanks.

      --
      mt
    18. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't prove any of this, so by all means keep looking. Just don't hold your breath or anything.

      You can't tell me what to do. I am going to hold my breath...

    19. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by khallow · · Score: 1

      True, but some of the Cetacean species may be intelligent enough (or even more intelligent than humans, whales do have larger brains) in your context, but just not have the tools or education.

    20. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Would have to dredge it up. A collection on "Interstellar Colonization," I think, though it could be one I have on the Fermi Paradox.

    21. Re:Flaw in Drake Equation by Jarnis · · Score: 1

      Um; Even if we assume that we'd have sizeable human population off-world right now (sizeable enough to reproduce and continue the species), should earth (or sun) go 'poof' on this instant, we'd be toast. Period. At our current tech level, we are dependant on the small planet we are on.

      Yes, we can imagine a lot of tech that could, in theory, support us elsewhere right now. It's all unproven, and right now Earth is required for the existence of the species.

  115. And now I'll defend the bloody Drake equation by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
    The problem with SETI fanatics is that they assume that aliens are using primitive EM waves to communicate.

    That actually covered by the fc and L factors. But it's still a useless equation.

    If EM waves were the only way to communicate, we would be bombarded with intelligent signals from all directions.

    At some level, but free space losses drop the signal levels until they get lost in the background noise, even in the microwave window. I design satcom links, and that's the biggest factor we fight: the signal attenuation simply due to distance. Hence, antennas in which you could land a small plane.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  116. The real question is... by doctor1 · · Score: 1

    The real question is, "what's their IP address?"

    --
    Astronauts in weightlessness of pixilated space, exchange graffiti with a disembodied race. - Rush
  117. Re:Other predictions -- WWBS? by Anonymous+Cowardly+B · · Score: 1


    Are you James T. Kirk?

    Yes, but... What Would Bones Say?

  118. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  119. Warp Drive by 2020 Too by syntap · · Score: 1

    These are supposed to coincide, right?

  120. The Twenty-Year Rule... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    "Anyone who makes a prediction for a technical breakthrough by twenty years will be automatically suspect and barred from publication in professional journals and receipt of public funding" You'd think we woulda learned from the AI and fusion power people.....

    1. Re:The Twenty-Year Rule... by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      You'd think we woulda learned from the AI and fusion power people.....

      But there's an important difference between these - fusion power is actually known to be possible, and could become commercially feasible any decade now. Or should that be any century now...

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  121. 2020? by azatht · · Score: 0

    I thougth first contact was on april 4, 2063?

    --
    ------- In the end there are no begining
  122. lag... by borgdows · · Score: 0

    PING alienciv (2001:660:4401:6002:210:b5ff:fe86:b6a7 [IPV6]) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from alienciv : icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=78e7 years 8 months 12 days 3 hours 54 minutes 41 secondes 558ms

  123. We are alone in the galaxy by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Besides that fact that they are pulling numbers out of their ass, there is already a high probability that there is no other intelligent life in the galaxy.

    Proof? Easy. Look up The Fermi Paradox. One of the corollaries that convince me is the fact that, even at sublight speeds, it only takes 1-10 million years to fill up a galaxy, since a race would tend to fill up in a geometric progression. Given how old the galaxy is, it should have happened by now. It only takes one race in billions of years to have wanderlust for earth-like planets, and boom! No more intelligent life rising up.

    That it hasn't seem to have happened means we are alone.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      No, it means our neighbors are BORING. They don't have much sex, and they're not interested in leaving the house.

      Maybe we should throw a party and invite them.

    2. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by BurritoJ · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting Joe's Rule of Firstness...

      Someone has to be first. It just might be you.

    3. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by blamanj · · Score: 1

      That kind of growth is predicated on mere math, not human behavior. Plagues such as the Justinian plague in 550CE, the Black death circa 1300CE, and AIDs in the next 20 years take significant chunks of the population. However, these have all be temporary setbacks, as the birthrate has been high enough to offset them.

      More relevantly, in recent years, the birthrate in industrialized nations has dropped sigifincantly and has gone negative in some countries. This is due to primarily to contraception technology. Even allowing for the fact that these technologies haven't impacted the 3rd world significantly yet, the overall world fertility rate dropped from 6 children/woman in 1900 to 2.7 in 2003. Declines are expected to continue. If rates continue to decline to a rate such as 1.85, the world population in 2300 would actually be lower than it is today.

    4. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, shit, have we filled up the galaxy? Hell, only a very small handful of humans have ever left Earth! Who's to say that a hypothetical other intelligent alien race is more advanced than we are?

    5. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      The key word in your post is "human behavior", which is irrelevent to alien behavior.

      Remember, it only takes one race that wants to spread itself, and we have billions of years to work with, and needing only 1-10 million years.

      If intelligent life were common, the odds are very low that it wouldn't have happened once.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    6. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Someone has to be first, but again, that argues against intelligent life being common. What makes us so unique that we would be first? We're talking about multiple BILLIONS of years. We've only been intelligent for a few hundred thousand to (maybe) a million years. That's nothing in galactic terms. If intelligent life were common, it would be extremely improbable that we would be first.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    7. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by eaolson · · Score: 1
      Proof? Easy. Look up The Fermi Paradox. One of the corollaries that convince me is the fact that, even at sublight speeds, it only takes 1-10 million years to fill up a galaxy, since a race would tend to fill up in a geometric progression.

      Maybe, at a certain level of sophistocation, intelligent species realize that filling up the galaxy like swarms of locusts isn't a good idea.

      Or maybe they already have filled up the galaxy and are just tiptoeing around our little corner of the universe saying, "Shh, we don't want to bother the primitive monkey-people."

    8. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by BurritoJ · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that someone does indeed have to be first.

      You can say that it is very unlikely that we're first, but it's unlikely to fill a gut-shot straight in poker,too. But it happens.

    9. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Citizen+Philip · · Score: 1

      Or just maybe, millions of years ago some other world species parked in orbit, looked down.

      "Oh look, a planet cpable of supporting life, but the homogenous enviroment is not interested in evolving, only creating larger and larger reptiles. We should remedy this problem."

      Aliens lob a huge rock at the planet, crack a few tectonics plates, throw a few million tonnes of topsoil into the atmosphere. Coincidentally this rock throwing throws the earth onto a evolutionary friendly tilt, permitting seasons.

      The aliens shrug, "Give it a few million, who knows?"

      Somewhere at the bottom of the gulf of mexico written on that big rock is "All the best. Hope you evolve. Warmest regards, civilzation 124533452a. PS: Avoid nuclear weapons and eatting too much McDonalds."

    10. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Or maybe they already have filled up the galaxy and are just tiptoeing around our little corner of the universe saying, "Shh, we don't want to bother the primitive monkey-people."

      Which reminds me. My SETI client just emitted a weird twinkling sound like an aardvark being pressed through a screen door, and a voice that sounded kinda like "The avalance has already started. It is too late for pebbles to vote." Then it rambled on a bit about teaching us "to fight legends" while playing the Star Wars Imperial March as performed by someone using ostrich feathers and a xylophone.

      So I think we're safe. For now. What do you want?

    11. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how old the galaxy is, it should have happened by now.

      An economist and an options trader were walking down the street, debating the "efficient market" hypothesis.

      "Oh, look," said the options trader, pointing. "There's a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk."

      "Couldn't be," said the economist. "If it were, somebody would have picked it up by now."

    12. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by gid · · Score: 1

      "Shh, we don't want to bother the primitive monkey-people."

      Exactly, never forget the prime directive. Don't interfere with pre-warp civilizations. :) All joking aside, the prime directive is a good idea, and I wouldn't doubt if other ETs held similar morals rules.

      Just out of curiosity I looked it up. I've never seen this whole version before...

      PRIME DIRECTIVE

      As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral
      obligation.

    13. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another fallacy in your theory:
      You assume at present, in our galaxy, the alien races have space travel already and that there are no catastrophe occuring to wipe out some species.

    14. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Databass · · Score: 1


      since a race would tend to fill up in a geometric progression

      Maybe most space-faring races understand the value of birth control.

    15. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 1
      population exponentiation recovery from the black death took a whole of.....

      13 years

      The devastation wrought by the black death which killed a third of europe's population was recovered within twenty years.

      Population statisitcs over a span of time greater than 8 or so generations are frighteningly acurate even given the smaller spikes and plummets in shorter time ranges.

      in a predator vs pray scenario, the predator popualtion reaches an critical near apex point where-in either the predator finds a natural balenced level in regards to its prey and tapers off to a stable maintence mode, or spikes high and returns in an inverse parabola as the predator dies off exponentialy due to lack of resources (pray) and over-population.

      if you map the human growth rate over the last 40,000 years or so you will see that our population curve hasnt deviated from standard predator vs pray algorithms. Even with contraceptives, population control and so on, the growth curve is still extremely accurate... luckily with these new controls somewhat in place, our growth curve is begining to resemle the predator balenced with his reseources curve, as opposed to the mass plumet in population.

      We will see humanity's growth defy some aspects of the laws of P vs P algorithms when humanity expands off of the planet... creating the first population explosion after a taper (double peak).

      As to the parent posters belief in galaxial exponentiation, including seti's own misguided reasoning there-in... there are far to many indeterminates involved to asses wether or not we wil find life or not, and whther or not there is a mathmatical proof that WE know of that can say if it should exist or not.

      For instance... FTL communication and transportation is still an open question. Exponential growth cannot sustain itself with a light speed limitation, at some point that barrier would hinder the growth curve vs its own size.

      While our mathmatics based upon growth rates of living and inanimate environments have strong backgrounds, we have no proof that all life must adhere to these common rules, it may be that life in other forms and planets moves too slow or too fast to grow beyond it's originating solar system, or is too encumbered by it's own physical form to adequatly manipulate it's environment for inter-stellar travel (or even inter-planatary travel). This is greatly evidenced by dolphins, who are highly inteligent (though in a different manner), but with opposable thumbs and in a incongrous environment for building things (the ocean) are greatly less likely to ever go down the path of being able to modify their environment for space travel (how would a dolphin build a space ship?).

      Evolution of course allows for nearly any species or creature to eventualy change to a point wherin space travel is technicaly possible for them.... but the time it takes for that species and its host environment to provide such results is a HUGE variable... additionaly one must take into account devastation, and divergent evolution. Just because we evolved towards rockets and the moon, doesnt necesarily mean another species in another habitat will... our space bound endeavors are greatly a result of us having full control of the earth without any predators or serious obstacles to our survival... essentialy... space... has been a hobby for humanity... an off-shoot, or bi-product of our existance.

      then there is time dialation and so on, depending on the mass of your solar system and it's proximity to the outer edges or inner sphere of the galaxy.... time may pass relativly fast or incredibly slow compared to the rest of the galaxy, humanity may go through its entire existance from mesopatamia to star trek within the span of time it takes an alien to blink an eye.

      I could go on, but im certain you guys can think of a million different reasons why fractalish growth patterns may not apply on a universal scale.

      food for thought, thought for food.... --VISION

      --
      --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
    16. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh I don't know about that. Put aside romatacism and think for a bit about intersteller travel.

      The speed of light may never be broken.
      Intersteller colony ships may never be economically feasable.
      Advanced Intelligent civilization may never be long term stable.

    17. Re: We are alone in the galaxy by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Proof? Easy. Look up The Fermi Paradox. One of the corollaries that convince me is the fact that, even at sublight speeds, it only takes 1-10 million years to fill up a galaxy, since a race would tend to fill up in a geometric progression.

      That assumes that some significant fraction of the founded colonies would dedicate themselves and the fruits of their labor to colonizing at least two other planets, generation after generation for millions of years, rather than trying to see who acquired the most toys before they died and wasting their time on political or religious bickering.

      In our world we have trouble sustaining expensive technical initiatives from one election cycle to the next, let alone over the entire history of civilization.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    18. Re:We are alone in the galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm.

      Because alien races probably achieved a much, much, much higher level of technology.

      I argue to the point where selecting a universe from the time stream becomes possible. So, everyone just picks a universe for their own blissful existance, and goes there.

      This only works if you subscribe to the multiple universes/world-lines theory. Wait 20 years and you will.

  124. Robotic Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robotic servants... you mean like Roomba http://www.irobot.com/consumer/? Or those hospital delivery robots http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/06/217238.shtml ?tid=137&tid=216?

    1. Re:Robotic Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh, you mean like the one in Rocky IV...

  125. Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not convinced that there is life outside of earth to find. Even more so, I really doubt that if we find another planet that harbors life, it will contain intelligent life. Scientists are just beginning to learn how unique our planet really is. Things such as our cosmic location to even our (relatively) overly large moon add into the stability of our planet. Also, (and this is more of my own opinion) intelligence seems to be overrated as far as what we see on earth. For instance, apes are among the most intelligent creatures on earth, yet they do not have radio communications. Ants, on the other hand, have been around for millenia, yet are very simple creatures. If intelligence was such an important factor to survival, I think we would see more animals on earth nearing human intelligence. I also believe in divine creation of humans, the idea of which, I think, is helped out by the fact that we are so unique amoung all the species on earth.

    --
    SIGFAULT
    1. Re:Not convinced by Wubby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are also finding out about how easy it is for life to exist in even the harshest of environments. Life is looking more and more simple to create and sustain than we ever thought in the past.

      Intelligence is not all that important for survival in general, but survival from other slightly "better" creatures. Is a rabbit more intelligent than a fox when it runs faster? Maybe not, but the wolf may be more intelligent when it works with 5 other to catch some rabbits.

      Ants, on the other hand, have been around for millenia, yet are very simple creatures.

      Not to insult, but that statement display a fundamental lack of understanding of the known processes of change over time with modification and natural selection. (AKA evolution)

      An ant doesn't get smarter or more complicated over time just for the hell of it, it needs a reason. (and no, the ant species doesn't decide this, it just common to anthropomophize the subject). If it never needs to cut leaves, it doesn't benefit from mandibles, so they never become a survival trait to pass on the the next generation.

      And we are not that unique. We share so many attributes and have so little range of difference with some other species that denying the evidence smacks of agenda and dogma.

      --
      Sig
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
    2. Re:Not convinced by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      Indeed, why is our genome 95%+ similar to that of chimpanzee's?

    3. Re:Not convinced by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      I think there's a point you're missing here:
      Lots of other species of life have varying levels of intelligence, but what seems to set US apart is that we have TECHNOLOGY.

      All the other life-forms have either evolved physical characteristics to survive change or have gone extinct.

      We've done neither.
      We don't evolve physically it would seem, rather we control our surroundings and environment through our technology.

      We can live in the arctic, not because we evolved fur or thick layers of fat, but because we made tools (clothes) that permit us NOT to have to change/evolve in the Darwinian sense.

      It's been proven that other animals have language. It stands to reason that if you have a language, you must possess intelligence... If you have something to say and the means to say it and have it understood, then there definitely has to be a framework of intelligence in there.

      Would your argument be 'sentience' then?
      Until we learn the whale, dolphin or ape language to the point of being able to formulate questions dealing with the sense of self or existence, it's impossible to know if those species ever consider their place in the universe, so I reserve judgement on whether or not WE are the only sentient life 'round here until then.

      Non of what I've said negates a divine plan, you know... But what use are we if we are completely alone out here?

      Is God trying to tell us "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply [throughout the cosmos]" ?

      On the other hand, if there is alien intelligence, then the meaning of existence may be something else, which I can't put my finger on right now. ;-)

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    4. Re:Not convinced by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      "how unique our planet really is"... just like how unique the latest lotto winner is. And yet people do win lotto. When you have 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each and billions of years, well that's a lot of planets in the lottery.

      Not to mention the fact that life could certainly evolve in environments we wouldn't expect. Certainly earthlike planet is not necessary. Look at the various examples of harsh environments on earth that support life: eg bacteria thriving near ocean volcanic vents, or miles underground in earth's mantle. Once life gets a foothold like that, anything is possible, including the evolution of an intelligent species.

      Regarding your point that intelligence is overrated, there is an article in a recent New Scientist which basically points out the same; in essense that intelligence is not the 'ultimate' survival adaptation, and plenty of species get by just fine without it. So if you are trying to reason against evolution by saying "why haven't more species evolved to intelligence", it doesn't necessarily follow that natural selective pressure will produce intelligence. It would be like a tiger wondering (if tigers could wonder) why all species hadn't evolved to hunt and kill as efficiently as they.

      You sound thoughtful and intelligent; do yourself a favor and read some of the stuff by Richard Dawkins.

      None of this is important anyway, since reality as we know it is probably running on a matrix-type simulator.

    5. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does the 5% difference allow us to do calculus and quantom mechanics and build suspension bridges and aquaducts and ask these questions?

    6. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I think the comment about the ants came out wrong. I didn't mean to say that because ants have existed for a long time they should have evolved into intelligent creatures. What I meant was, they have survived for (possibly) millions of years without needing much intelligence. Obviously their survival isn't dependant upon their intelligence, so intelligence must not be the only thing that is needed for survival. Thats what makes me wonder. If evolution (on the large scale from one species to another) is true, then why would humans have so much intelligence? I don't really think I'm ignoring any evidence. I know how genetically similar we are to apes, but I still feel that we are fundamentally different (even if describing that difference in DNA doesnt' take much code).

      --
      SIGFAULT
    7. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Well, not exactly sentience, but intelligent to the point of being able to construct some sort of communication device. Even if there was life on another planet, I find it very doubtful that they would have communications that we could detect on earth.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    8. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      ""how unique our planet really is"... just like how unique the latest lotto winner is. And yet people do win lotto. When you have 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each and billions of years, well that's a lot of planets in the lottery."

      I realize what you are saying here...but the research that I read made it seems as if we are unique to the point where having billions of galaxys would make little differnce. I know I'm not expressing myself as well as I should be, and I don't have the sources off-hand. Perhaps when I get home I will look them up and post them.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    9. Re:Not convinced by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      >Even if there was life on another planet, I find it very doubtful that they would have communications that we could detect on earth.

      I have to agree with you on that:
      Clouds of inter-stellar gas have been detected that contain massive amounts of organic molecules throughout the galaxy. As Carl Sagan said "The stuff of life seems plentiful in the universe"

      But even if the universe is brimming over with lifeforms, maybe we ARE utterly alone in our status as technology-mastering sentient lifeforms...

      To get back to your divine creator comment, if we ARE alone like that, then what does it mean? It really DOES boggle my mind...

      I mean, if it turns out that we're run-of-the-mill , and we certainly seem to be; ordinary star, ordinary quadrant of space, ordinary galaxy, ordinary distribution of matter, etc...

      Then I'd expect that there are lots of other aliens civilizations. No surprise, really.

      But if we're all alone in all that vastness, the only thing I can ask is

      WHY?

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    10. Re:Not convinced by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but suppose there are billions of universes (aka the multiverse or many worlds theory), all with varying settings for constants and such. Naturally life will develop in the universe with great conditions, and voila here we are.

      Oversimplified, a particle like a photon exists as a wave until it is observed. It occupies all possible states. This is what allows it to pass through both slits simultaneously. (google "two slit experiment") Systems of particles can also behave as a wave function. Why not the entire universe? the wave function of the universe would allow the universe to exist in all possible states, including states where life is not possible, and states even more conducive to life than the one we are in.

      Now you might not be inclined to accept this as a possibility--why should we postulate the existance of universes that we can't experience or even detect, to explain why ours is so fine tuned. Hmmm, think about it.

    11. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      One of the points mentioned in the research I read stated that the universe might need to be so large in order for us to have relative stability on earth. If that is not the case, I don't really know what that means. I find it difficult to attempt to figure out what God was thinking when he created the universe. Since everything seems to work in a system and have a pretty decent reason, I think it might be entirely logical that the unverise was created simply for our existence.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    12. Re:Not convinced by Wubby · · Score: 1

      Ok, I think the comment about the ants came out wrong. I didn't mean to say that because ants have existed for a long time they should have evolved into intelligent creatures. What I meant was, they have survived for (possibly) millions of years without needing much intelligence. Obviously their survival isn't dependant upon their intelligence, so intelligence must not be the only thing that is needed for survival.

      Agreed. Creatures have "survived" on earth for 100s on millions of years without need much "intelligence".

      If evolution (on the large scale from one species to another) is true, then why would humans have so much intelligence?

      Well, the problem with that arguement is "what do you consider 'so much' of intelligence?" It's all relative. Lets try to forget the fact the WE are making up the definitions (and therefore rather biased).

      Compare ourselves to similar looking creatures and we have the ape. Compared to and ant they are genius (they can use tools, have social orders, taught and comprehend language_ Compared to humans they are stupid.

      Dolphins on the other hand are much smarter than apes, despite being genetically dissimilar to us. Complex problem solving, language skills, possibly even math! So intelligence is not a trait that is confined to genetic structure.

      My point is that intelligence may be an evolutionary trait much like any other. It can develop seperately in multiple lines in similar ways.

      An eye is an eye not becuase two creature where decended from a common eye-having creature, or were created by a single supernatural entity, but because it works. Same for legs and hair and teeth and bone. Adaptation to the environment.

      In response to Progman3K on this, I would agree that we have made a leap from simple intelligence to technology, allowing us to survive far beyond our "natural" environment, but we have both evolved and become extinct (well, our cousins anyway). There is plenty of evidence that we are the latest line in a long line of "humanoid" species. We were better, they died off. Now we are technology. Maybe THAT is why we survived that they didn't.

      --
      Sig
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
    13. Re:Not convinced by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      > the unverise was created simply for our existence.

      I haven't read the research you're referring to (if you have a link, please post it), but it almost sounds like the anthropic principle; ie. the universe is like it is because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to see it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_prin ciple

      I'd recommend you read Neil Stephenson's In the Beginning Was the Command Line.

      http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.ht ml

      Not because it argues against any point you or I have made, but because he's got a really cool section at the end of it where he talks about the start-up parameters for a universe, and the different outcomes depending on the initial ratios chosen. Fascinating stuff.

      If you're a hacker, you'll probably really dig the rest of the piece too, if not, simply skip to the end.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    14. Re:Not convinced by GlassHeart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the research that I read made it seems as if we are unique to the point where having billions of galaxys would make little differnce.

      No, what we lack is precise knowledge that the earth is special. That is, we don't know the probability by which a planet has a big moon, or that it is near enough a star to sustain life. We don't know the very parameters of life, except that it exists on earth in great varieties.

      Absent this knowledge, it is incorrect to assume that the earth is special, any more than a lottery winner should see herself as (too) special. If you only know of one lottery winner, then you'll be misled as to how often somebody wins the lottery if you try to extrapolate based on that ignorance.

      The correct approach is to assume that we are one instance of random behavior, that the earth just happened to be so far from the sun, that we just happened to have a big moon, that we just happened to not have collided (yet) with another big object. We are likely a very special planet, but we really have very little clue whether we are special enough to claim exclusivity.

      Once you accept this randomness assumption, then the probability of life (and therefore intelligent life) on another planet is entirely a matter of how many planets there are out there. The more, the likelier.

      Remember that if you're a one-in-a-million kind of guy, there are more than 1,000 people in China alone just like you.

    15. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes...good old quantum physics. If what you say does turn out to be true then we could just be the existence with only one planet with life on it as well. I don't know if I buy the whole multiverse idea. Personally, I believe there could be multiple dimensions, but I'm not sure about multiple universes (wow that has to be bad grammar).

      --
      SIGFAULT
    16. Re:Not convinced by nazzdeq · · Score: 1

      The only way an ant would get mandibles is not because they need it, but because of a mutation. Shit, i need some wings, but I don't just grow a pair. Ants haven't evolved a whole helluva lot and exist in all environments? Why not? Maybe they just don't mutate that much. Who knows.

    17. Re:Not convinced by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Radio communication =! intelligence. If you've listened to the radio recently you know what I mean. It's not like the average man understands radio above and beyond turning the knob, something that I'm sure a monkey can do.

      The most unique thing about humans is that we were so ill-equipped to deal with our environment we had to develop things like fire and tools to survive. While this makes us a smart bunch, I would not say this makes us more or less intelligent than other animals we share the planet with who just so happen to not need the things we do to survive. You could say hardship can lead to a species developing new skills, and this would make it difficult for us to discover life on other planets from afar.

      You also have language, something some consider to be the apex of human development. But there are those who belive many a sea mammal have such skills.

      While I can't dismiss divine intervention as far as development of life in the universe, I can not believe that one would create something as huge as a galaxy let alone many galaxies and only populate one planet.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    18. Re:Not convinced by Wubby · · Score: 1

      True, but they only reason the species keeps it is because they would need it. I was just trying to use some linguistic shorthand. Sorry for the confusion.

      --
      Sig
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
    19. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      "Radio communication =! intelligence."

      I know and that is why I think that even if life does exist (and even if it is mildly intelligent) we will probably never make contact with it or detect it, thus why the SETI project will never have any results.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    20. Re:Not convinced by burns210 · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why humans were the only form of 'advanced' intelligence... Seems odd, compared to all the life out their in the forests, plains and wilderness.

    21. Re:Not convinced by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      Good point on technology, but I think it's really a case of degrees.

      Technology is really just advanced tool use. Using a chainsaw is at least fundamentally similar to using a stone axe, it's just more complex and advanced. From this standpoint, technology does not make us unique among Earth's animals. Elephants and apes both use tools, and I think other animals do as well. It's just that we do it to a greater extent.

      I don't think there is a single thing that sets us apart. It's probably set of things that all finally happened in one organism. Maybe the combination of complex communication, social structures, tool use, and rudimentary mathematics. I don't know any other animal that has all of those characteristics.

      But what relevance does this have to intelligence, anyway? Recall in the opening of HHGTG :

      ...Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.
      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    22. Re:Not convinced by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      Divine intervention? A discussion about reality adn physics, backed up by good talks, and suddenly someone comes along and tosses in human make-believe. Truly, the largest lack in the human species is religion.

    23. Re:Not convinced by Listen+Up · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Divine intervention? A discussion about reality and physics, backed up by good talks, and suddenly someone comes along and tosses in human make-believe. Truly, the largest lack in the human species is their unbelievable reliance on mke-believe religions.

    24. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but I find your post so ironic. You obviously put much faith in science and look down upon "human make-believe". In this light, I present to you: is science really anything more than human make-believe? Honestly, humans, like any other creature, often make mistakes and scientists are no different. Just the other day Stephen Hawking corrected one of his previous theories, something that he was so sure of earlier in his life. Reality and physics are things that are defined by the human mind. If you find it easy to put your faith in something that humans created, I find it even easier to put my faith into the idea that there is a God who created humans as well as life and the universe.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    25. Re:Not convinced by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Divine intervention? A discussion about reality adn physics, backed up by good talks, and suddenly someone comes along and tosses in human make-believe. Truly, the largest lack in the human species is religion.

      Actually, the largest lack in the human species is the idea that one set of ideals are better than another set of ideals. For example, science is right religion is wrong. Whether or not the antecedent is physical or metaphysical, it's all human make-believe until such time we are able to prove it. The idea of something divine or otherwise creating life is a valid hypothesis, no more or less valid then the idea of life being the result of random chance.

      The quest for life other than earth is important to all camps of science, religion, and philosophy because of the common lack in our species. Everyone wants to say "I'm right and you're wrong."

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    26. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is NOW only one intelligent species on Earth. There were more in the past, Or at least there were several pre-human species but what happened when they met? Look at Europe 50,000 years ago. The Neaderthalls died out very quickly. Basically we modern humans were much better at finding food and so on theat we drove them out of the ecological nich. I claim that we are unique on Earth because there CAN be only one group lke us. I doubt us "moderns" systematically killed them off, more likly we just ran faster and snatched the food before they were able to get it.

      It may be true in the gallaxy too.The first one to start populating other worlds prevents others from ever evolving. Do you think we'd even be here today if some alien race build cities on Earth 200 million years ago? Those ciies could have prevented mamals from ever evolving let alone primapes and humans

    27. Re: Not convinced by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I always wondered why humans were the only form of 'advanced' intelligence... Seems odd, compared to all the life out their in the forests, plains and wilderness

      Suppose an alien collector picked up a human, a chimp, and an earthworm. How would he group them into two categories of intelligence?

      Also, why is intelligence the crucial metric? Shouldn't we be equally dazzled that some species has the longest tail, another runs the fastest, another has the kinkiest reproductive procedures, etc?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    28. Re:Not convinced by Krafty+Koder · · Score: 1

      yeah - but Hawkings change his ideas based on extremely complicated mathematics. And his ideas on black holes are just that - ideas. We're trying to work out how black holes work by using mathematics and nothing else. Of course, we're going to make mistakes - but correcting those mistakes is part and parcel of the progression of science.

      You, on the other hand, hold onto a fairy tale , made up by desert nomads thousands of years ago.

      If you don't want to use your brain, then that's your problem.

      Anyone wanna join my church of the invisible pink unicorn???

    29. Re:Not convinced by hippycow · · Score: 0
      > I also believe in divine creation of humans...

      Hmm. So the creature capable of divinely creating humans would come from where? It doesn't seem like the capability divine creation is an important factor in survival, either.

      Or are you just punting?

    30. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because your mother was fucked by chimps?

    31. Re:Not convinced by ludlum · · Score: 1

      No. Obviously, aliens came and fucked the monkeys.

    32. Re:Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      divine creation eh? then surely we can't be alone. why, if we go into the center if this here star cluster, I swear, we can talk to god. no, really. really!

    33. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you have ever read the Bible, but it is very profound. The ideas and tendencies inherit in all humans that it speaks of hold true even today. It is much more than a fairy tale. Like it or not, the Bible and Christian morals are the basis for our core laws and the laws of many other nations.

      As far as what you said about not using my brain, I resent that. What does believing in God have to do with my level of intelligence? I have studied much science and I believe that it should be used as a guideline -- it is a means to an end -- a way to predict the outcome of certain situations. However, I do not believe that it should be considered absolute truth. If you cannot see the need for a savior in your own life, then I am sorry for you and you have my prayers.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    34. Re:Not convinced by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      I thought of this after writing my previous post, but I thought I should mention it anyway. If the Bible is just a giant fairy tale, why create such a story? It is pretty much historical fact that Jesus did exist, so it is probably safe to assume that the people in the Bible are who the claim to be. There was absolutely no personal gain for them in writing the passages that they wrote in the Bible. Almost all of Jesus's apostles met horrible deaths as well as many of the other early Christians. Also, the Bible shows how humans tend towards evil and it points out our mistakes as well as the fact that we cannot save ourselves. If you think about it, who would really want to believe in something like that? I believe it because I realize it to be true and I feel how God has worked and continues to work in my life. The Bible is much more than a fairy tale and it is the only thing in this world that is absolute Truth. Perhaps you should read it, then you can decide for yourself if you still think it is a fairy tale or not.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    35. Re:Not convinced by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Most scientists and many laymen are blind to the fact that there are so many things about our world and universe that it couldn't have happened by accident, only by a master plan by a higher power but they just chalk it up to a whole bunch of coincidences.

      I have to wonder if scientists can find bacteria living near volcanic vents on the ocean floor then why can't they find the same bacteria living on Venus since using their mindset, if bacteria can live on earth in temps in hundreds of degrees then why can't they live on another planet where temps are hundreds of degrees? Sounds like their idea of life being able to pop up anywhere and then evolve doesn't hold too much water if the life only appears on earth.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  126. Obligatory Simpsons ref. by Anonymous+Cowardly+B · · Score: 1


    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

  127. Re:There are not aliens (except in citizenship sen by alex_ware · · Score: 1

    Even as a christian, I have to say that you are wrong.
    It says man was created in gods image, then if these aliens are the same they too have the name/class man (or whatever in their language). If they look different then either humans or aliens are mankind.

    --
    If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
  128. This reminds me of a movie.... by akeyes · · Score: 1

    So, will it be anything like "Independence Day"?

  129. an even more important question.. by js3 · · Score: 1

    supposing aliens are also listening for signals of aliens and they run into our noisy broadcast spectrum, how are they supposed to know what is just random chatter and an actual message? Will they go through all the AM/FM, TV, CB, Wi-Fi, Wide band, short, wave, cell phone messages just to deciper it?

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  130. Another accurate prediction... by DungeonCoder · · Score: 0

    2020 will be the Year of Linux.

  131. Top Ten Questions about these aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Top Ten Questions about the aliens:

    1) Will the aliens be allowed to backup media that they legally own?

    2) Do they have oil? Maybe we can go to war with them...

    3) Will the aliens be hit with DirectTV threat letters from their Uranus for intercepting a crappy signal?

    4) How will the $3,500 DirectTV blood money be converted into their currency?

    5) Will the patent office be flooded with new alien claims to gifs, automatic software download and Linux? Maybe aliens created ELF?

    6) Will they be covertly tagged with RDIFs when they arrive, so they can be tracked by Walmart?

    7) Are these the same aliens that are on Opra and Jerry Springer, which thrive in our trailer parks?

    8) Will jobs be outsourced or "co-sourced" to their planet? Will I have to wait on hold for 6 hrs for someone to translate my problem?

    9) Can they work 14 hr days? You know, because they would be salaried employees of course.

    10) Are they democrats or republicans? You know we don't really like independants ;)

    int27h

    1. Re:Top Ten Questions about these aliens by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      5) Will the patent office be flooded with new alien claims to gifs, automatic software download and Linux? Maybe aliens created ELF?

      I can't believe you're siding with McBride & company.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    2. Re:Top Ten Questions about these aliens by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      So, what does all this REALLY enTAIL?

      3): Do you preDICT that the signal to UrANUS will be digital or ANAlog?

      Tales/Tails of SciFi Terror?

      5): When all those silver disks show up in the atmosphere, we'll have an ELO: Elclectic Light Orchestra, or a NEO: Near Earth Orchestra, if they emerge from the TAIL, umm, corona of a comet.

      6): RDIFs? Reduced-Data Information Feeds?

      7): Don't forget the "Crossing Over" show. Maybe the man stutters and stammers because of earbud or translation problems. (Is it a tree? I see THREE. Wait, he's in a room... Wait! He has a BROOM!)

      8): They'll be SHAREDSOURCE, using SHAREPOINT,

      9): The treaty of Axanar will spare them. But, the REAL question is: "How long can they last? 14 Hours? Oh, xTRA TERResTREEYul GI, me love u LONG LONG TYME"

      10): No, and they're not Demicans nor Republicrats, either. They might be EOD, Equal-Opportunity Devourers, tho...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  132. This article assumes.... by Savet+Hegar · · Score: 1

    that even if there are alien civilizations within transmission range, that: 1. They will use radio to transmit communications. What if they use a method of signal transmission totally foreign to our understanding of physics? 2. That THEY are listening. Just because we are preoccupied with finding extra-terrestrial life, that doesn't mean that THEY are. 3. That they would even respond. The assumption is that they are able to respond. It's very likely that even if we find intelligent life, it will be behind us or ahead of us in terms of technological development. If they are behind us, they may not be able to respond. If they are ahead of us, they may not feel we are worthy of a response. How much attention do we show to ants? Who says that ant crawling on your leg isn't trying to make contact.

    --
    Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
  133. Good Eating? by handy_vandal · · Score: 1


    Let's be honest.

    Whenever I encounter a new species, the first thing I ask myself:

    Is it good eating?

    - kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Good Eating? by Hutchizon · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I believe that's exactly what the ET's will be thinking. What can I do to make myself lest palatable to the alien palate? I'd take up smoking but I'm afraid then I'd just taste more like smoked turkey. Sign me, Not on the menu

  134. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    The exponential nature of tech growth implies that we are like apes to a civilization even 100 years ahead of us, and like ants to one thousands or millions of years ahead of us.

    Bullocks.

    Are people from 100, 500, or 1,000 years ago "apes" to us? They didn't have all of the modern conveniences, but a lot of them did exist--and the average person, though less educated, was not a good deal less intelligent than they are today.

  135. If they attack... by bonaman_24 · · Score: 1

    If they communicate with us, then come to attack us, we could always rely on creating a virus on a MAC that will take down their mother-ship. (Independence Day)

  136. Bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Make up a bogus equation.
    Step 2: Make up some bogus numbers to plug into bogus equation.
    Step 3: Perform the bogus calculation
    Step 4: Get a bogus news organization (Associated Press) to publicize
    Step 5: ???
    Step 6: Profits!

  137. First Contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody knows that First Contact won't be made until Zephram Cochran makes his first historic faster-than-light flight on April 5, 2063.

    Live long and prosper, bitches.

  138. The secret is by permaculture · · Score: 1

    ... to bang the rocks together, guys.

    --
    Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
  139. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site's slowing down (thanks /.), so here's the text...

    EXO WORLDS
    First Contact Within 20 Years: Shostak

    Will the 20s see ET roar onto center stage
    Mountain View CA (SPX) Jul 22, 2004
    If Intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, advances in computer processing power and radio telescope technology will ensure we detect their transmissions within two decades. That's the bold prediction from a leading light at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute in Mountain View, California.

    Seth Shostak, the SETI Institute's senior astronomer, based his prediction on accepted assumptions about the likelihood of alien civilisations existing, combined with projected increases in computing power.

    Shostak, whose calculations will be published in a forthcoming edition of the space science journal Acta Astronautica, first estimated the number of alien civilisations in our galaxy that might currently be broadcasting radio signals.

    For this he used a formula created in 1961 by astronomer Frank Drake which factors in aspects such the number of stars with planets, how many of those planets might be expected to have life, and so on. Shostak came up with an estimate of between 10,000 and 1 million radio transmitters in the galaxy.

    To find them will involve observing and inspecting radio emissions from most of the galaxy's 100 billion stars

  140. I beat them to it... by telemonster · · Score: 1

    Sawblade, Speak & Spell and a fork in the woods.

    Alf was fake. The pickup never happened.

    Phone Home!

    Say it.

    --
    Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  141. What if everyone is more or less at the same level by gelfling · · Score: 1

    All this postulation about this space culture or that. But what if all the so called intelligent cultures are more or less at the same point we are - early 21st century give or take a thousand years. That would me that they about as blind to us as we are to them. Meaning that they might be far closer than say a million light years but because of their limited technology and power output they can't send a recognizable signal to us nor can they receive any recognizable signal from us.

    Think of it this way - to some far off place the earth must look like one of a large collection of fairly strange radio sources that appear far more powerful than any natural occurence dictates they should be. But that raw output is pretty much all they would see, and that's only if they are practically next door. Much further than 50 light years away and we start to look postively preindustrial. So in order for us to find an intelligent source not only does it have to be fairly close to us it also has to be much more advanced else we would never see any nascent culture with barely the power or sophistication to transmit. Remember that is space distance equals time.

  142. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by geekboy2k · · Score: 1

    Umm, yeah. Because people at the turn of the LAST century were like apes to us...
    However I do agree more with the second portion of your statement (Millions of years ahead, not thousands).

  143. ...MUST believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    >> Anyone who has watched Steve Balmer dance ...MUST believe in aliens...

    What's the critical factor between now and 2020?

    Aliens, Aliens, Aliens, Aliens!

    And, a 350 dish Allen telescope should be enough for anyone ;)

  144. ET Light-sphere; not really a sphere!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any ET life that has the technological capacity to produce radio signals, will before long (say 200 years) be using compression to maximize transmission bandwidth. By definition, as compression gets more efficient, there is less apparent order to the signal. If there was any order left, in other words, you could compress the signal further.

    The result is that the detectable light-sphere enamating for this ET civilization, effectively becomes a light-shell, with a thickness in light-years equal to the length of time between their widespread adoption of radio and its conversion to a maximally-compressed digital format (the generous 200 year window mentioned above).

    Unless we were listening within that 200 year window, the signal is either still on it's way, or is past us. In other words, the likelihood of SETI detecting a signal is roughly equivalent to the chances that we're within 200 years of the ET's in development, adjusted for the time-of-propogation.

    This assumes they're not trying to be detected by transmitting a naked pattern intentionally, but offers a good counterpoint to the "party line".

  145. Contact Protocols by sciop101 · · Score: 1
    MJ-12 has contact protocols.

    Simply phrased "Shot first, greet later!"

    Times were simpler then. The world wanted to either be like or destroy the USA. Now, the world wants to the USA, or destroy itself.

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  146. Interplanetary quake by Tragek · · Score: 1

    Now we will have all those quake addicts complaining about the ping of Alpha centuari!

  147. 2024 or 16 years? by Bralkein · · Score: 1

    Sorry if I seem a little pedantic here, but the summary is quite confusing. I know you can just RTFA to straighten it out, but I don't really think there's much excuse for having to. 2004 + 20 = 2024. Not 2020! That is a difference of 4 years. While 4 years might not seem like that much at first, think about it in terms of, say, your own life. If I die at the age of 80 (I figure that's a reasonable guess, right?), 4 years is 5 percent of my entire life!

    1. Re:2024 or 16 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry but it's neither 2020 or 2024, it's "within 20 years"

      that's not really a time reference but simply a measure of how much some people woud like a thing to happen sooner or later (the number of years might be inversely proportional to the desire they have for it to happen), so it's very likely that someone will say the exact same thing in the next years, e.g. in 2010

      this way to express a desire is quite common*, consider for example: "we'll have a cure for AIDS within 2 years" or "oil reserves will run out within 30 years"

      * among you humans

  148. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site's slowing down (thanks /.), so here's the text...

    EXO WORLDS
    First Contact Within 20 Years: Shostak

    Will the 20s see ET roar onto center stage
    Mountain View CA (SPX) Jul 22, 2004
    If Intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, advances in computer processing power and radio telescope technology will ensure we detect their transmissions within two decades. That's the bold prediction from a leading light at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute in Mountain View, California.

    Seth Shostak, the SETI Institute's senior astronomer, based his prediction on accepted assumptions about the likelihood of alien civilisations existing, combined with projected increases in computing power.

    Shostak, whose calculations will be published in a forthcoming edition of the space science journal Acta Astronautica, first estimated the number of alien civilisations in our galaxy that might currently be broadcasting radio signals.

    For this he used a formula created in 1961 by astronomer Frank Drake which factors in aspects such the number of stars with planets, how many of those planets might be expected to have life, and so on. Shostak came up with an estimate of between 10,000 and 1 million radio transmitters in the galaxy.

    To find them will involve observing and inspecting radio emissions from most of the galaxy's 100 billion stars. The time necessary for this formidable task can be estimated from the capabilities of planned radio telescopes- such as SETI's 1-hectare Allen Telescope Array and the internationally run Square Kilometre Array- and expected increases in the power of the microchips that sift through radio signals from space.

    Shostak assumed that computer processing power will continue to double every 18 months until 2015- as it has done for the past 40 years. From then on, he assumes a more conservative doubling time of 36 months as transistors get too small to scale down as easily as they have till now.

    Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates. But because they will probably be between 200 and 1000 light years away, sending a radio message back will take centuries.

    Paul Shuch, executive director of the SETI League, a separate organisation in New Jersey, says Shostak's prediction ignores one important factor. "It is altogether reasonable to project the development of human technology, based upon past trends and planned investments," he says.

    "But predicting the date, the decade or even the century of contact is another matter because the 'other end' of the communications link is completely out of our hands. It would be nice to think we know something about the existence, distribution, technology and motivation of our potential communications partners in space, but in fact, we don't."

    Shostak admits that there are myriad uncertainties surrounding his prediction, but he defends the basis on which he made it. "I have made this prediction using the assumptions adopted by the SETI research community itself."

    The Physics Of Extra-Terrestrial Civilizations
    Moffett Field - Apr 27, 2004
    To consider habitable worlds, advanced civilizations, and how to find and classify them, Astrobiology Magazine had the chance to discover from Dr. Michio Kaku that the laws of physics has much to say about such possibilities--at least much more than where you might expect speculation to lead you from our tiny corner of the universe.

  149. Drake Equation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is the product of seven variables, only one of which can be scientifically even estimated. The remainder are guesswork and hope, so the probability of finding alien life forms, intelligent or otherwise, is directly related to your level of optimism. Personally, I'd like to find intelligent life somewhere, possibly even on this planet.

  150. but... by TomatoMan · · Score: 1

    ...wouldn't you still want to know?

    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
    1. Re:but... by laigle · · Score: 1

      I've got as much scientific curiosity as anyone, but SETI is one area where my cynical side wins out. First off, I don't buy the idea that we'll recognize an alien signal. I see no reason aliens are more likely to beam out a stream of identifiable data (eg prime numbers) than we are, and we're sure as heck not going to take our chances letting everyone know where the buffet is. General radio signals are not truly identifiable unless you know the transfer function between that signal and the end data, which we woudn't. All we're doing is guessing about narrow-band signal spikes.

      Secondly, even if we do intercept such data, meaningful communication is impossible by radio with years-long lag time. Actually, it's impossible by radio alone, period. The most we'd ever pass along would be a few simple mathematical expressions, then both planets would get bored. You can't transmit a video signal without knowing the particulars of whether and how the aliens see, you can't transmit language without context, you could possibly transmit an analog audio signal but that doesn't help with the language barrier (assuming aliens hear to begin with). Real data is not going to change hands unless we can meet and learn language through context.

      Finally, I'm sufficiently confident in the laws of chance that I don't need SETI to think there's life out there, and lack of hits isn't going to change that frame of mind. The universe is unimaginably huge. Complex life is probably rare. That still means that there are likely to be a large number of civilizations out there, just that we'll probably never find, let alone visit them.

      I'm all for analyzing the data we gather in the routine course of events. But I don't see a point in a seperate investment, and I definitely think the likelihood of finding anything of practical interest goes down as the search area (and the resulting data volume) goes up.

  151. Do they take requests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want aliens that Captain Kirk can outmaneuver with Corbomite. Oh, and please include a bug in the program that locks it in an infinite loop when we ask it calculate the value of PI to the last digit, so we can make them all go away when we get tired of them.

  152. wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fact is, we are all aliens.

    Over time, we have moved from planet to planet, depleting resources and moving on to the next... hence the differences in races, languages, religions, etc. This is also the reason the dinosaurs on Earth died off - we could not co-exist with them. Destroying them was the answer. Upon leaving a planet, our technology was always at a point to where we could manage to create life on the next.

    Studies on Mars will uncover clues to this.

    The answers will come in time.

  153. Hello..Hellooooo... It was only an echo. by kikensei · · Score: 1

    The odds or our own existence are sigificantly paltry. The odds of intelligent life elsewhere are practically nil. Get to know your neighbor and forget about ET. The univerese is full of gas and empty rocks.

  154. Look out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The green alien babes don't want you, either...

    Those big blue gay aliens sure like you, though

    1. Re:Look out. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Galeon, anyone?

      (Contraction: Gay (by spiritual/outward mood or carnal/corporeal orientation, either qualifies) + Alien, Extraterrestrials of extreme intelligence, biding their time on Gaia, writing software code, awaiting the Mothership's return...

      Hist Fact: Former President Jefferson's Starship was late picking him up at the rendezvous...

      Hist Fact: Greenbacks were inspired by Little Green Men...)

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  155. In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Presesent Jenna Bush prepares a pre-emptive strike against Zebulon 5, rumored to be harboring WMD. "By gum, I just know they got 'em there somewhere. I can tell by the look in their beady little eyes, all three of 'em!"

  156. Re:There are not aliens (except in citizenship sen by ynohoo · · Score: 1

    Don't be silly. God was created in man's image, because we're the coolest, right?

  157. SETI really doesn't do much good for mankind by ShatteredDream · · Score: 1

    I contemplated joining, but thought "what the hell, they may not even be approaching this right, why risk wasting CPU cycles on them?" Then I found out about Folding@Home, and am impressed with its goal. It actually will make a difference in the quality of human life by helping us fight more diseases.

    SETI@Home might get us in touch with an alien race, but is that even desirable at this point? All of those people racing to contact ET forget that most of the abduction stories involving the "greys" are incredibly negative and traumatic. Do we really want to full open ourselves up to them others who may be just like them in their attitude toward human life?

  158. People Expect Aliens To Be Friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Purely from a logical viewpoint I find it very interesting that people expect all alien forms to be friendly. Yet it seems that people somehow got this idea that because they might be further evolved than us they would have to be peaceful.

    Why would some other lifeform have better standards and ethics than us? Do we have statistics that say X% are friendly and Y% have proven to be hostile?

    Just look at this one tiny planet. Are we very peaceful? Sure does not look that way to me. Have we waged less war the more we evolved we've become? Nah, we just got better at killing. A-bomb anyone?

    We don't even have policy in place to stop things like Vietnam to occur. Just because money was involved (from the minerals). We lost 50,000 people while somone got a bunch of oil out of Sout Vietnam. And then later sailed up the coast and sold it to North Vietnam. So we now people do crazy things for money. No doubt about it.

    Slavery, genicide it's all there...

    So it just seems a bit too naive to just brush it off with "Oh aliens must be friendly!" They could be a lot better than us, but we don't have a clue if they are...

    That makes it a bit dumb to send out probes that tells a potentially unfriendly aliens, and if they have the know how to come here, technically superior weaponry, all about us.

    You see how quickly the military gets involved if there's a way to use a new technology for military purposes.

    Anyway when I see friendly alien notes I always wonder what kind of logic was applied to arrive at that notion when there's no data to support that.

    1. Re:People Expect Aliens To Be Friendly by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      One reason why aliens are expected to be friendly is that the resources required to successfully undertake interstellar travel are so high that a society that performs such a feat can't afford to spend resources (mental, economic, whatever) on negative efforts, like genocide.

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    2. Re:People Expect Aliens To Be Friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but from where did this logic arrive?

      Why is that such a high resource? What kind of resources do you think they would need?? And if you came up with an answer to that - well that would be pushing it don't you think?

      It's only high interest the first few times. Like our own spacetravel. You don't even want to hear about the routine space travel we do these days.

      Besides the two don't have anything to do with each other. We have super powers like the US, former Russia and China. Ever heard of abuse, slum and crimes on ALL LEVELS of these societies?

      I can see why somone would like your statement to be true, but it's purely a hypothesis. I would love it to be true. Could be kinda neat.
      But we have nothing promising higher forms of ethics so far.

  159. Re:SETI Predicts? Erm, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stopped with the first sentence, huh?

    From further down:

    Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates

  160. Barking up the wrong tree by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    I think they should be looking for subspace beakons

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  161. Re:Bigger Deal: Singularity or Discovery of Aliens by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    replicators don't spread by radio waves, what are you talking about?!!

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  162. Power Output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me pu tit this way... go to your local gas station, look at the prices, and ponder that we humans used to discard gasolene as a USELESS byproduct of kerosene manufacturing....

    Really, this whole thing comes down t the assumption that A) we get really lucky and the critera you describe are met, or B) some more advanced civilization is wasting what we would consider to be humongous amounts of energy. It is rediculous to assume that just because our power output is at a certain level, that an alien race's power output would be equivalent.

  163. Are we sure we want this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If their anything like us, perhaps we should stop trying.

  164. Re:Alien Phobia by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2, Funny
    I think that phobia is based on a bit of introspective reasoning. Would we want to meet ourselves? Knowing how humans treat other humans, I think that the level of respect two alien cultures might have for one another is a bit suspect.

    But we might be an abberation. The rest of the universe may be all "peace-groovy, brother" and we got saddled with the wingnuts. Probably not though.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  165. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by spronk · · Score: 1

    "exponential nature" being the key point here folks.

  166. I think it quite clear to most... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    That as we continue along our current path, the odds of our complete self destruction rise exponentally - to the point of being almost 100% certain.

    That being said, any sufficiently advanced civ would either have to overcome this tendancy (if they share it) or we would never meet then.

    Of course, this says nothing about how they would treat us, only how they treat each other.

  167. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We've only been broadcasting RF for about 100 years. Another possibility is that there are so many pre-communicative civilizations that advanced races simply aren't interested in Yet Another Mute Species and there aren't any alien RF detectors in a 100-light-year sphere of us to know that we've figured out how to make baby speech.

    Similarly, perhaps said races have been checking up on us ever 1,000 years or so. When they last visited in the 1400s, we were busy trying not to be killed by our own microbes, we couldn't comprehend electromagnetism, and couldn't even leave the surface of our own planet without a physical structure to support us. Maybe we'll show more promise next time around, assuming that we haven't managed to exterminate ourselves in the mean time.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  168. galactic spammers and n00bs by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    It may well be that we pick up on "spam". Sure our first contact might be a recipe for a super duper power source or stardrive or weapon. Or it could be a grocery list. Hell, the first message we get could be "FP!!!1!", heh. :)

    Or, our first intercept might be something like "If you can read this, you are too close, and we are dispatching the Vogon Constructor Fleet." ;)

    Or how about, "....indicates that the new species is attempting to observe our communications. Shows tendency to grow without regard for available resources. Unstable, shows potential, frequently inflicts harm on itself and surrounding life forms. Please advise. ~Gloobanerb Exterminators, Inc"

    Getting even wackier, maybe the first message will be "...ooooooooooo! woooaaaaaaaooooouaaaoooooo!! oooooooooaooooooouaaooooo!" Captain, we're receiving whale song! ;-) Or, "....are likely to be eaten by a Grue. /n 71/80hp> _"

    Hell, we've been broadcasting for ~50 years now... maybe message one will just be "SHUT UP!!!"

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  169. Re:What if everyone is more or less at the same le by Surt · · Score: 1

    When you say give or take 1k years ...

    Take 1000: no radio
    Give 1000: Massively improved detection and broadcasting capabilities.

    The odds of all the other civilizations being even within 1k years is tiny. What SETI counts on is that we won't be able to hear the people less sophisticated than us. The people much more sophisticated than us should be capable of blaring out messages so loud they would be hard to miss (if they are interested in sending messages).

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  170. And the first message we'll send back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "all your base are belong to us"

    1. Re:And the first message we'll send back... by jzarling · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the first messege the get back is not about the Church of Latter day saints.

      --
      It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  171. Hello-oh! by DrVikarius · · Score: 1

    What if everybody in the galaxy with radio tech is listening... and nobody's sending anything? Sort of a cosmic phone system where all the subscribers are sitting around waiting for someone to call their answering machines (we'll reply after we've listened to your message and decided whether we want to know you or not). Not much of a start for a galactic civilization, I guess... but hey, it's a dworp-eat-dworp Universe out there.
    ****************
    "Nature never says yes to a theory. It is almost always no. The best one can hope for is a maybe." - Albert E.

  172. WWBD though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see it now, we make first contact...

    And someone like George Bush decides to bomb the shit out of them so he can get their oil.

    Of course he will tell us all that they have weapons of mass destruction (such as photon torpedos?)

  173. not too far off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sylvia Browne predicts in her recent book ETs will be out of the closet in 2030s...

  174. funny, by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 1

    funny, the aliens I talk to don't predict contact for at least another 50 years.

  175. Re:Alien Phobia by tsg · · Score: 1

    The rest of the universe may be all "peace-groovy, brother" and we got saddled with the wingnuts.

    That may be by design... "Earth: Australia of the universe..."

    d&r

    --
    People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
  176. Or will it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it probably be distinguishable from random noise?

    Lets face it, we're not the only civilisation in need of compression and encryption. In fact, I would assume that aliens would be advanced enough to make our most potent compression and encryption algorithms look like 1st grade maths. I would also assume they would want to use the available communication bandwidth as efficiently as possible, so even if unencrypted, I assume they would use compression.

    Now, for those of you that don't know this (very few, I'm sure), the point of compression is to reach the best possible entropy relating to the information content of the data. Or, in short, to make the resulting data as random as possible.

    So what do I expect to hear from aliens?
    A: White noise.
    In the case of compression + encryption
    A: More white noise.

    Hey! That's what we're already hearing! Cool! Conclusive proof of aliens!

    Another thing that bothers me: WE are not sending any 'Hello Universe!" messages into deep space (other than TV and radio), because, as I've read, it is just too expensive. In broader terms, it's a lot of hassle.

    What do you think the odds are that there are a whole lot of races listening, and no-one is actually transmitting?

    1. Re:Or will it? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Will it probably be distinguishable from random noise?

      SETI is only looking for purposeful beacons aimed our way to say, "hello". They figure if there's an advanced friendly civilization they might decide to do something like that.

      We're not expecting to pick up stray communications signals.

      Another thing that bothers me: WE are not sending any 'Hello Universe!" messages into deep space (other than TV and radio), because, as I've read, it is just too expensive. In broader terms, it's a lot of hassle.

      We only discovered nuclear power 70 years ago. 70 years is a blink of the eye in cosmological scales. In a thousand years we'll probably have the spare power to setup a beacon...

      What do you think the odds are that there are a whole lot of races listening, and no-one is actually transmitting? ...or maybe we won't because we're afraid of being attacked. It's a good question. SETI is optimistic that any inately violent race will have self-destructed before setting up a high-power 'bait' beacon.

      Math shows that even at sublight speeds it should only take a few million years for a race to colonize a galaxy. So if they're out there, they should as next door as possible. Maybe they're waiting for us to say, "hello," first. It would imply a certain maturity on our part.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  177. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    Whatever. A few hundred years in technological advancement means nothing in the terms of "apes" or "ants" as you infer. Technology does not affect the ability of a race to learn, conceive, or use said technology. We've come across a number of stone age civilizations on our own planet and they are not like apes compared to us. They can learn and be integrated in rather well. Japan went from a fuedal society to a technological world power through their own acheivements in a few decades. Biological matters that will require us to think of other races as either apes or ants take evolutionary changes that are factors of millions of years. Even if they have the technology to change their genetic make-up to something advanced enough to consider us "apes", they'd have the same abilty to advance us the same way should they choose.

    What will matter will be cultural differences. They will encounter us, we might be unwilling to accept their culture and technology, at least in a large enough step to catch up with them. They will have the advantage of a higher technology and how they treat us may depend if they have a klingon type of civilization and enslave us or Federation and simply leave us alone. Most lilkely it will be something in between and they'll off shore factories and work to our world because we're backwards, have unexploited natural resources and work for cheap.

  178. However, Stephen Hawking's recent claim... by vigyanik · · Score: 1

    ...may have invalidated the theory that singularities can be used to travel around the universe at will. If you go into the black hole, you're toast.

    1. Re:However, Stephen Hawking's recent claim... by Starcub · · Score: 1

      If you go into the sun you are toast, but that doesn't mean it couldn't act as a slingshot. The mere existance of black holes, seems to suggest that faster than speed of light travel is a possibility. The trick is in using one's immagination.

  179. Um, that was a SWAG all right... by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Personally, I find this SWAG to be wild high by several orders of magnitude... Personally, my guess is that our galaxy has 0-5 other species actively transmitting.

    The Drake equation is a way of phrasing the question so that it's not a "SWAG" based on nothing but intuition. It teases out the variables in the equation so that you're able to think clearly about what the chances are, assessing what you think each variable might really be. Choose your values:

    number of stars in the Milky Way
    the fraction of stars with planets
    planets per star capable of life
    fraction of those planets where life evolves
    the fraction of THOSE where *intelligent* life exists
    the share of THOSE life forms that communicate
    the fraction of those planets' lives during which they do commuicate

    I'm struggling to see how your "0-5" guess approaches anything like the same level of considered thought. I can sure rig one of the Drake calculators out there to get such a result. But you don't want to even bother with that, so you dismiss anything like a real, thoughtful guess as just as haphazard as yours?

    Ignorance and incuriosity are soft pillows, but only for hard-headed people...

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by ninti · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the "Drake equation" breaks one big wild-ass guess into a bunch of interconnected wild-ass guesses. And that is so much better.

    2. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      It's much better. The easyer the question the less chance we get it wrong.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    3. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      We have an estimate to question one. Everything else is nothing more than pure guesswork.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    4. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Easy.

      Number of stars in the Milky way: 10^11
      The fraction of stars with planets: 30%
      Planets per star capable of life: 1
      Fraction of those planets where life evolves: 10^-80 (taken from the odds of RNA forming abiogenetically).

      That gives an answer of 0, modified to 1 because we know that Earth has life.

      See how well considered that was?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    5. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by Saige · · Score: 1

      Fraction of those planets where life evolves: 10^-80 (taken from the odds of RNA forming abiogenetically).

      And this isn't a SWAG?

      Though you did misquote the probability that's commonly used as disproof of abiogenesis, something more like 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390 is much more common.

      Regardless, assuming that things had to go from non-living ooze directly to RNA is ridiculous - it would be like assuming you had to go from a pile of iron ore to a complete Model T for the automobile to exist. There are a number of possible pathways for going between an amino acid soup and life. One pathway that's commonly mentioned goes like
      "chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria".

      And most listed probabilities are misapplied anyways. It's not like we're talking a one-time event. If the chemicals are present together, there are constant possibilities for interaction - with enough tries, no matter how unlikely something is, it will happen. Rolling ten dice and coming up with all of them sixes is unlikely - if all Slashdot readers were doing it constantly, the amount of time for it to happen wouldn't be that long because of the number of tries.

      And besides, don't forget that your statement assumes that life can form only in the way it has here, which is an unfounded claim.

      Life may be extremely unlikely, and we just happened to beat the odds to be here. Or it may be just uncommon. Or if you have the right chemicals present on a planet, the formation of life may actually be likely. Who knows?

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    6. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      No, it's not a swag. These are calculated based on the known chemical properties of formation and reacton for the necessary chemicals.

      "chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria"."

      Which becomes absolutely hysterical and laughable when you actually start inserting real chemicals into that path.

      >Or if you have the right chemicals present on a planet, the formation of life may actually be likely. Who knows?

      We know, because we know what the right chemicals are, and we know the laws governing their reactions, and we can calculate the probabilities of formation. Granted, it's senior-level college chemistry, but not impossibly difficult to figure out.

      If it were so easy, we would have already done it. (ditto the silly just-so path from chemical to bacteria you mentioned earlier.)

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    7. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by Saige · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Or if you have the right chemicals present on a planet, the formation of life may actually be likely. Who knows?

      We know, because we know what the right chemicals are, and we know the laws governing their reactions, and we can calculate the probabilities of formation. Granted, it's senior-level college chemistry, but not impossibly difficult to figure out.


      And I'm sure you can point me to the studies that show that the way life is on this planet is the only possibile way life could ever exist, right? That they've tried all other possible combinations of elements possible, or at least proven that all those other permutations cannot possibly ever in any combination lead to life? After all, claiming that life as it is here is the only possibility is an extremely huge claim, so you must have evidence supporting that claim, right?

      Or are you just saying that because it throws your assumptions that life is impossible to form on it's own into chaos? That's what I have to guess, because I don't believe they've ever proven that life as it is here is the only possible way for it to be.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    8. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by Javagator · · Score: 1

      We know that the answer to the number of planets with intelligent life is not zero. It seems a little improbable that the answer is exactly one, also. However, I can think of several reasons why contact is unlikely. The last factor in the Drake equation is the lifetime of a civilization. All technological societies my eventually stumble across some technology that makes nuclear weapons seem like a fire cracker, and these societies promptly destroy themselves. There was a movie based on this premise, "The Forbidden Planet". Another possibility, is that there is a much more efficient technology for communication than radio waves. The time a society spends in the radio technology phase may be so short that it makes to sense to try to communicate that way.

    9. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      We know that the answer to the number of planets with intelligent life is not zero.
      I'm not so sure. Delete "intelligent" and I might agree, though.

      http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/ping0/galaxysong.html

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Um, that was a SWAG all right... by Javagator · · Score: 1

      "Life that has developed technology" might be a better term than "intelligent".

  180. What do you mean 'no other' by batzel · · Score: 1

    What do you mean 'no other'? I've yet to be convinced there's intelligent life in the galaxy at all. Cogito ergo spud.

  181. Don't forget what the Mayans and Egyptians said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article quickly assumes we're still here after the strange year of 2012. It's hard to tell what to expect.

  182. 2020 is incorrect by LouCifer · · Score: 0

    I predict 2010 or 2011 by the latest.

    And I don't believe it'll be because of SETI.

    Laugh if you want, but remember this post.

    --
    Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
  183. Lag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is wether the lag is so bad that we can't beat them at Counter Strike

  184. I didn't read the article referred by vigyanik · · Score: 1

    Ignore the parent comment I posted. Sorry

  185. The Rules of Future Predictions by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    It seems I must once again post these rules:

    1. No matter what you predict in the future, you will be horribly wrong.

    2. The people in the future will mercilessly mock you for it.

  186. Too optimistic by scruffy · · Score: 1

    This is way too optimistic. I think it will be more like 2030.

  187. Re:Alien Phobia by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    As T-Bone Burnett put it:

    We come from a blue planet light-years away
    Where everything multiplies at an amazing rate
    We're out here in the universe buying real estate
    Hope we haven't gotten here too late

    We're humans from earth
    We're humans from earth
    You have nothing at all to fear
    I think we're gonna like it here

    We're looking for a planet with atmosphere
    Where the air is fresh and the water clear
    With lots of sun like you have here
    Three or four hundred days a year

    [chorus]

    Bought Manhatten for a string of beads
    Brought along some gadgets for you to see
    Heres a crazy little thing we call TV
    Do you have electricity?

    [chorus]

    I know we may seem pretty strange to you
    But we got know-how and a golden rule
    We're here to see manifest destiny through
    Ain't nothing we can't get used to

    We're humans from earth
    We're humans from earth

  188. Can you hear me now? Then shut up! by AwesomeJT · · Score: 1

    Response: deathray aimed at source of annoying frequencies ticking off all the local residence of our sector. After a breif squeal of about 6.2 billion voices screaming, at last peace and quite.

    --
    SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
  189. Lag by greening · · Score: 1

    I guess a lag of a couple days would rule out any Counter-Strike play. Which is sad, since I was really looking forward to owning some aliens...

    --
    Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
  190. I can't help wondering by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    if a chimp would recognize "techno" music as communication, or as enviromental noise? When I hear a modem doing handshake, I know what's happening but if I didn't I think I'd probably dismiss it. I think our biggest problem in deciphering any message will have less to do with weeding out stellar noise and more to do with our intellectual capacity (or lack therof). We might decode a message in 10 minutes if it's a chemical recipe for oh say, plastic. An alien treatise on philosophy or religion might be totally beyond our reach in the same way Differential Equations are beyond the reach of oh say, a trout. We might physically lack the apparatii for comprehending the information payload.

    Remember the episode of STTNG where Q loses his powers and hides out on the Enterprise, and a moon is going to crash into the planet, and Picard asks him for advise? Q's response is "Oh, just change the gravitational constant of the universe.." Picard goes "How?" and Q says "What do you mean how? you just do it". Try explaining the nature of the Schroedinger's Cat Paradox to a 2 year old. If the kids a freakin' genius, (s)he might understand part of it. That's the relationship we're hoping for. Now, try to explain it to a fruitfly. We might discover that we are that fruitfly.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  191. they forgot a few SMALL details by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

    Even if we DO hear alien broadcasts by 2020 the civilizations will most likely be hundreds if not thousands of light years away. 1) there is no way that we can currently travel those distances and in any sort of reasonable time 2) by the time we hear them their planet could already be dead and gone

    --
    -Cnik
  192. find someone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    btw when will they find bin laden ?

  193. Less likely than the "Singularity" by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    ... the Sigularity being transhumanism's (Vinge's?) word for the time when a man-made AI entity exceeds the intelligence of any human. As unlikely as I think THAT is, it seems more likely that the first "alien" intelligence we meet will be one we create rather than one from outer space... or from deep in the ocean or in the Earth's core or wheverever an alleged ETI thing is hanging out.

    If it were inside the Earth, it would be an ITI (Infra-Terrestial Intelligence), wouldn't it?

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  194. time for flames!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to direct this at you necessarily...

    I think that if a god or gods did create this universe, and they made earth the only planet populated with intelligent life, then that god would be stupid.

    1. Re:time for flames!!! by dfj225 · · Score: 0

      Why would that make God stupid? If you could create something with so much beauty and mystery that it made people think of you, wouldn't you want to do that? I mean, outerspace has been called for a long time "The Heavens" and many cultures thoughout history have studied the stars and looked upon them as giving insight to a god. I don't see any logical reason why not to do it. It's not like God has a budget to work on or a manager to answer to :)

      --
      SIGFAULT
  195. Interstellar Gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must give us great quantum computers.
    Maybe, just maybe, HL2 will be out by then.
    I just don't want to play them online with it.
    That'd be some bas-ass lag time. :(

  196. Any sufficiently advanced technology is ... by Larthallor · · Score: 1

    sure to get us all killed.

    Everyone thought we'd all kill each other with nuclear weapons. Since it hasn't happened yet, we've been lulled into thinking we were being paranoid. We were not. Not only could we have killed ourselves with nukes, we still can.

    But that's not the worst of it.

    Nuclear weapons were the first class of weapons which could kill everyone on the planet. But they aren't the last, or even the worst. Nuclear weapons, as should be filtering down to all of us via the coverage of the recent events in Iraq, are difficult to construct even for nation-states with BILLIONS of dollars to throw at the problem. Also, it takes a lot of time and, as Iran, North Korea and others have found out, is relatively easy to detect.

    Biological weapons, however, are a different story. The knowledge of life and death are inextricably intertwined; how can you seriously figure out how to cure disease if you don't know how it is caused? Indeed, the primary way to study curing disease is to CAUSE it in test subjects and then try to fix it. The secrets of life (and thus death) are falling rapidly before us and it turns out to be frighteningly easy for small groups or even individuals to create disease that would encircle the globe and kill literally billions.

    In fact, the only thing stopping this from happening is the lack of crazies who don't mind killing billions indiscriminately and have managed to keep it together long enough to get a degree in microbiology. Over the next fifty years, the bar for being able to modify life is going to keep lowering, while the population of crazies (along with the rest of us) will be increasing.

    While the prospect of nuclear holocaust is a frightening possibility, it is much easier to prevent. The bar is high enough that one may operate at the nation-state level to ensure non-proliferation and as little all-out warfare as possible. But how can you prevent a single madman from using the techology we're creating to cure disease to create one which will fell us all?

    I believe that life is a natural outcome of certain conditions that are likely to have existed sometime in the past 5 billion years in millions of places in this galaxy, to say nothing of the rest of the universe. Intelligent life with the ability to create a techology sufficient to spread itself to other planets is much rarer. Part of the reason is that intelligent life is rare compared to normal life and the other part is that the techologies likely to have co-developed with a potentially starfaring culture are too easily turned against themselves.

    I'm starting to think that the Amish may be on to something. Then again, not many Amish civilizations would be detectable via radio telescopes.

  197. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    ..."c"restrictions from the current physics knowledge notwithstanding"

    Uhhhh.

    If by this you mean they will break the light speed barrior, you're guessing.

    If by theis you mean they COULD travel, it will STILL take 20,000 years to visit many places.

    *Exactly* how do you conclude they would have already been here. The galaxy is a BIG place.

  198. We are alone in the galaxy or else... by ImWithBrilliant · · Score: 1

    I would demand considerable intel prior to engaging in any conversations with aliens. There are several reasons reasons why RF comm isn't common place out there:

    - nobody ever there

    - nobody around anymore

    - nobody wants to be located

    --

    Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?

  199. Seti Predicts we'll find the tooth fairy by 2020 by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    I'm a believer in the possibility of intelligent life on other planets but since we really don't know how far along we are to finding intelligent life, how do we know when we're going to get there?

    To give you a geek analogy, it's like your downloading a file of unknown length and you finally got a byte of data from someone and you think that oh I'll be finished by 2020 because this file couldn't be more than 2 terrabytes and I'm getting 1 bit a second. Unfortunately the universe is a big place and the stream of data might never end so estimating your completion time is meaningless.

  200. UNICODE is now DEAD by MortgageMan · · Score: 1

    Cheessuusss H Chriostmas! I JUST NOW got done recompiling all of my old WIN98 crap for UNICODE and .NET. And now I hear the alien alphabet has 6 quadra-trillion letters in it. Sonofabeast! How many bytes per character are in a 6 quadra-trillion char alphabet + all of UNICODE? --Richard

  201. Re: Lag Time by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

    I read this as

    "I sure hope that we're not the PHBs of the universe."

    Somehow, I'm afraid we are, however...

    --
    Don't underestimate the power of The Source
  202. can't last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any sufficiently advanced civilization will have legalized gay marriage and thus led to the downfall of the species.

  203. Most likely transmission... by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    Once interpreted into a suitable phonetic representation: [eSti'AN RE mEf'ryn As`en]

  204. Re:I predict.../have no fear by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

    SCO will countersue them for communicating, having by then patented the idea of conveying ideas to others.

  205. Resolving power by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    How can we expect to detect radio transmissions from another planet when we cannot even truly detect the planet itself.

    Sure - we can see the wobble its host sun makes as it orbits, but do we actually have the resolving power to see it - could we even detect a tiny rock like ours, or are we still limited to the super massive gas giants?

    Now, Consider the strongest signal WE could produce, how bright(radio strength) could we send a signal?

    Could we send something out SO bright that it overrides the emmissions from our own sun.

    Whilst I want it to work, I do not believe with current tech we will do so.

    Perhaps, the aliens also come to the same conclusion, and find that the only way to light a beacon across the universe is to do something BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG.

    What if some of the supernova we see are set off by intelligent life?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Resolving power by MortgageMan · · Score: 1

      > Now, Consider the strongest signal WE could > produce, > The loudest noise we make is FOX news. I hear the aliens want to discuss a new meaning for fair and balanced.... --Richard

  206. Uh, do we really WANT to contact the aliens? by choovanski · · Score: 1

    Scenario 1: Aliens are on the same level as us, with no space travel. Having nothing better to do we chat back and forth, using the universe's slowest IM. "Hey Bill! How R U?" "My apologies Plugh, the human known to you as Bill died a few hundred years ago." Scenario 2: Aliens are savage, but have the ability of space travel. (No doubt stolen from the last morons to visit their world.) They promptly head this way for conquest/lunch. Scenario 3: Aliens are incredibly advanced, their ships arrive as soon as they get our message. Who gets to explain poverty, murder, war, child porn, etc, etc, etc to them? What, no one raises their hand? Well maybe we shouldn't draw attention to ourselves until we're ready for the consequences. Just a thought. Any other scenarios are welcome. ;)

  207. Re:Allien fobia (sic) by JivanMukti · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...this does seem to be a bit of an unfortunate trend in modern thinking. Just because they look different, think different and have a different believe system we don't have to instantly nuke them when they are within reach.

    Well, I've never heard anyone refer to Al Qaeda as "modern thinking", but there's always a first time. I agree the MP3 comment falls under the category of humour, but to be cautious regarding the unknown is simply wise. No one suggested nuking (other than you). Because an alien race's agenda would be unknown, the wisest course is to avoid hysteria on either side and approach cautiously. A phobia is an irrational fear, that's not irrational; welcoming them with open arms without any knowledge about them is.

  208. Pools of gasoline, and a new tactic for SETI by Mablung · · Score: 1

    I've held the same idea for quite a while now. Galaxies are like pools of gasoline. We are the spark. (What's the chance of an independent spark occurring elsewhere before we engulf and devour?)

    But now I'm wondering about other galaxies. What happens when we take over this galaxy? Will we let all that energy go flying out into space? How long before we start encasing stars in solar panels?

    Maybe the SETI people should start looking for the disappearance of stars and/or galaxies.

    But then, a disappearing galaxy might be caused not only by the enveloping of their stars but also by the shadow of the robot fleet they've sent our way to start the process here.

    1. Re:Pools of gasoline, and a new tactic for SETI by Saeger · · Score: 1
      What happens when we take over this galaxy? Will we let all that energy go flying out into space? How long before we start encasing stars in solar panels?

      You might be interested to read about the Matrioshka Brain idea, which is a variation of the Dyson Shell in that the shell itself is the new thinking and living substrate ("matrix") for a post-biological civilization.

      Maybe the SETI people should start looking for the disappearance of stars and/or galaxies.

      Matrioshka Brains would be dark, and amazingly efficient (emitting some infrared), so the best way to detect them would be to observe that the rotational rate of a galaxy doesn't match the observed solar mass... hey... wait... that's supposed to be exotic Dark Matter, not hidden stars! :-)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  209. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  210. I think the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will we find intelligent life on Earth by 2020?

  211. Doesn't this screw up the star trek time line? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Hey, wait just a minute......we can't make "first contact" until AFTER the nuclear war, and Zefram Cochrane invents the warp drive in 2063. To do so otherwise would mess up the whole star trek timeline! Oh, what am I saying, WHAT timeline LOL..... (for those of you who take the whole star trek thing wayyyyyy to seriously, this was suppose to be a joke message).......

  212. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  213. technology isn't increasing that fast. by Stone316 · · Score: 1

    Maybe so, but if someone had asked me 15 years ago what kind of video games i'd be playing these days, I would have said it would involve some sort of VR/immersion.

    Flying cars, personal jetpacks,etc.. Technology doesn't always develope in the ways we expect. We are a lightyear ahead in some fields (than we were 20 years ago) but not much further in others.

    It seems like everynow and then we'll have a breakthrough which kick starts innovation but after awhile it crawls to a snails pace. ie, airplanes, computers.

    Take airplanes for example, we've been travelling in jetpowered planes for awhile. Whats the difference now? They are a bit safer, faster, bigger and efficient. But its fundamentally the same as it was a few decades ago.

    A hundred years from now i'd be surprised if we have more colonies than mars and the moon. I'd be really surprised if it would be affordable for your average middle class person to book a trip or even move to one of these colonies.

    --
    "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
  214. Tin Foil Hat by unorthod0x · · Score: 1

    As long as all the other views are being represented I figure it's only fair to remind everyone that there is a third option; we may have already made contact, unbeknownst to the general populace.

  215. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    My conclusion is that either we do happen to be the first one on the block, or that there may be a very few alien civilizations, that have chosen to be "quiet"...

    Sort of like, eh?

    Sometimes when you move in the neighbors bring you a pie. Other places, you have to bring a pie to the neighbors. If you don't bring a pie they figure you're too busy or not interested in chatting.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  216. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  217. The Real Question by Sir_Dill · · Score: 1
    Will they be Ramen or Varelse?

    And would we take the time to figure out which?

  218. doh! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    "Sort of like us, eh?"

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  219. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    100 years ahead does not translate to 100 years backwards.

    Not on an exponential scale--but first you need to prove that we are on an exponential scale, and not merely riding the exploration of a half-dozen core principles.

    At some point we will run out of basic principles to rediscover. To use a common /. example, eventually Moore's Law will run out--if nothing else, it'll hit plank-length constraints and speed limitations imposed by C.

    I'm sure that after the discovery of the sail, ocean travel and its benefits increased exponentially for a time--before finally the basic innovation ran its course, and was as fully understood as it could be. Multiple core principles doubtless build upon each other, but eventually the rate of "invention" will decrease and slow.

  220. GIGO by rlp · · Score: 1

    The Drake equation addresses the probability of ET life. Some of the values used in the equations are known, some are estimates, many are at best WAG's. I would NOT put a whole lot of confidence in any dates based on those values. Oh, but I forgot, Slashdot people are used to dealing with estimated software project dates. :-)

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  221. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's making the assumption they survive the technology they create. Humans are rapidly destroying themselves and their planet. Technology is power. The more technology, they greater the ability to destroy.

    It is reasonable to assume that life on other planets probably evolved only similarily basic lines of competitivity as here on earth. And with that competitivity, perhaps alien creatures that are abberative enough to become as intelligent as we, are usually end destroying themselves through technology because of the unstability inherent in a competitive psychology model.

    Maybe they're out there, but just don't usually survive the arrival of technology for very long (like us).

  222. Your sig by elhaf · · Score: 1

    >Is it true, that there's an exception to every rule? Yes, except that one.

    --
    Six score characters.
    Brevity being wit's soul
    I have enough space.
  223. Assuming there ARE aliens by n2rjt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The prediction makes some sense, assuming that there ARE aliens to begin with. I personally believe that Earth is the only planet in the universe with life. I won't be at all upset, however, if I turn out to be wrong.

  224. But we HAVE made contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    See this.

    If "over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology" isn't good enough for you, then start here to research our gov's own documents, and then go here and dismiss these reports with "swamp gas" or "venus" or "a flock of birds". This "we may contact other intelligent creatures someday" is a farce. They are here and have been for millenia.

    1. Re:But we HAVE made contact by medazinol · · Score: 1
      I agree with you 100%

      The evidence is overwhelming that we are the subject of a systematic survey and/or genetic tinkering program. If you don't beleive this is the case because witnesses are "unreliable, delusional or crazy" or sightings are "venus, swamp gas, baloons" then ignore that evidence and look strictly at government documents. THAT alone is enough proof that they take the subject seriously albeit secretly in order for the status quo and public awareness to remain as it is.

      As one nuclear physicist calls SETI; "Silly Effort To Investigate". Check out www.coasttocoastam.com for a debate between Dr. Seth Shostak of SETI and Stanton Friendman a couple of days ago. Mr. Shostak does not know jack about the visitation subject yet proclaims "there is no evidence that will convince him".

      Go read Richard Dolan's 500+ page book "UFOs and the National Security State". The BEST book on the subject from a milirary and government encounters perspective. Scary stuff indeed.

    2. Re:But we HAVE made contact by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      The thing that weakened Mr. Shostack's position the most was his use of Kal Korff as a reference on Roswell.

      He also seemed to think that if Mr. Friedman couldn't distill the totality of the UFO evidence into an easily communicable 10 minute presentation that it meant there was nothing to the whole matter.

    3. Re:But we HAVE made contact by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      "UFO's and the National Security State" is an excellent book. Truly investigative and highly researched. The documents cited are impressive.

      Just had to ditto. I apologize.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
  225. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    Let me quote you:

    The exponential nature of tech growth implies that we are like apes to a civilization even 100 years ahead of us, and like ants to one thousands or millions of years ahead of us.

    "Like apes" and "like ants" is a clear indication that you were talking about intelligence. If you WERE talking about intelligence, then the encounter wouldn't be as harsh a difference as you suppose--see the problems the British had with far-less advanced natives in Africa, or the current struggles we're having in the War on Terrorism.

  226. Mote in God's Eye by Chemisor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Read "A Mote in God's Eye" by Larry Niven for an example when it really is a good idea to instantly nuke them.

  227. Re:Allien fobia (sic) by Traa · · Score: 1

    didn't mention Al Qaeda.

    I totally agree that it should simply be "cautious regarding the unknown". That is proper behaviour. Avoiding hysteria is even a better thing to mention.

    Yes, the MP3 thingy was humour. So was the "I for one welcome...". Though the last sentence was summing up some irrational fears. The phobia. Guess my post was a little too political, sorry.

  228. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  229. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  230. SETI looks for obsolete signals by Animats · · Score: 1
    As I pointed out to one of the organizers of the major SETI projects a few years ago, any signal they could detect was legacy technology, already obsolete here on earth.

    The problem is that any signal that doesn't look like noise is wasting bandwidth. About 80% of AM broadcast (including broadcast TV, which has an AM video signal with FM audio) is "carrier", so it's easy to find those signals. Most newer systems, like spread-spectrum cell phones, not only have no carrier, but they're spread out in time, space, and code. They look like noise unless you know how to synch up to them. There's redundancy, but it's inside the coding. You need to receive a high percentage of the bits to find it.

    The SETI guys mostly look for "carriers", or at least signals with a big single-frequency component. The whole sky has already been searched for signals like that, and there are no high-power carrier emitters in range. Looking harder for carriers is a dead end.

    1. Re:SETI looks for obsolete signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument seems to make sense. Why, then, do SETI projects believe their efforts are still worthwhile?

      As I pointed out to one of the organizers of the major SETI projects a few years ago, [...]

      What was their response?

      The whole sky has already been searched for signals like that, [...]

      Again, some more information to support your argument would make it more convincing.

  231. Welcome, our SETI overlords by SadatChowdhury · · Score: 1

    In the spirit of this one liner that I frequently hear here:"I, for one, welcome our SETI overlords"

  232. What about interstellar RIAA? by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

    I think the RIAA should fund SETI. After all, what about all of that music potentially being enjoyed by aliens, and yet what revenue do they have to show for it?

    --

    www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

    www.fairtax.org
  233. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The exponential nature of tech growth implies that we are like apes to a civilization even 100 years ahead of us,

    Many of the key results of the 20th century involve the limits of what we can do. Godel incompleteness, and the speed of light to name two big ones. There is no indication at all that any civilisation, no matter how advanced, will be able to overcome the lightspeed problem and make us look like ants.

    technology to visit the entire universe at will ("c"restrictions from the current physics knowledge notwithstanding).

    You want the lightspeed thing to go away, don't you? Unfortunately wanting counts for nothing, and there's not a shred of evidence for that, and plenty against. Even given nigh-infinite knowledge, physical limits are physical limits.

    Many, including me, believe that within about 100 years, a civilization like our would have the technology to visit the entire universe at will

    It's entirely possible that a civilisation like our will, in 100 years, have A-bombed, bio-plauged, chemically poisoned or just polluted itself back to the early stone age. Or worse, wiped itself out entirely. I'm all for progress, but dude, go easy on the prozac.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  234. 1001 recipes for human Re:To Serve Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all we know, humans might rank at the cattle level on a galactic scale. You know - really stupid and very, very tasty.

    The reality is that the aliens have been here since the Roswell crash. Unfortunately, they do not want to be friends with us. Their plans for global domination: make the population lazy, fat, and stupid. Simply visiting a mall near you proves that this has been accomplished in the United States.

    Once a great country strong in manufacturing, the United States has withered to a "service" based economy, full of effete, physically and mentally weak pudge-balls.

    They took control of the Department of Agriculture and produced the food pyramid, a badly disguised plan for stuffing the population with carbs. They infiltrated the food industry, creating the process of partially hydrogenated oils and introducing corn syrup to promote delicious marbling of the flesh. They were almost found out when Reagan, long under the influence of the aliens from his days as an actor, made ketchup (primarily corn syrup) a vegetable for school children.

    The people are sheep who believe anything that TV tells them without the hassle of critical thought, as if it were even possible with all mainstream media under the control of 3 or 4 companies collaborating with the space aliens. The leader is an idiot, completely incapable of acting without his handlers telling him what to do, even in cases of national emergency. He is incapable of genuine, natural speech, only parroting what he has been told or is written on a teleprompter.

    I welcome our new, benevolent overlords. P.S. - I know a few good recipes for human.

    1. Re:1001 recipes for human Re:To Serve Man by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Yeh, the SUPER-SIZING of AMERICA!

      I KNEW the "Great Experiment" has a PURPOSE!!!

      Pretty soon, we'll be inside gigantic Slurpee machines.

      "Hi Mr. Bleextor? How would you like your Human Salad today? Sorbet? DOH!"

      "Kleztrox, what's brown, red, clumply and screaming? The Hyoo-mon in Processing bay Four! DOH!!!"

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  235. Hedging bets... by MattHaffner · · Score: 1

    That's why I'm always eating garlicky foods. 'Cause everyone knows that the vampiric aliens can't stand the smell of garlic. But... if they're not undead, I guess I'm screwed.

    1. Re:Hedging bets... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > vampiric aliens can't stand the smell of garlic. But... if they're not undead, I guess I'm screwed.

      I'll pass on the easy "not undead"=="really dead" line and go for the not-so-funny.

      Maybe the aliens can't stand bad breath? You never know (well, maybe not "never," exactly). Even if you were never a Boy Scout, you should still "Be Prepared," so chow down on the garlic and breath heavily on the aliens.

    2. Re:Hedging bets... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping any hostile aliens will have primarily female soldiers. If my prior research with our species holds true, they'd walk right by me without another look.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    3. Re:Hedging bets... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If my prior research with our species holds true, they'd walk right by me without another look.

      Interesting... I wonder if that power can be harnessed to create great new camouflage for our military. Geek-o-flage. Of course, that does require the enemy to be all female, and we know that the reverse isn't necessarily true -- men will still look at unattractive women, but women are primarily vain bitches (sense any hostility? :)

  236. Re:What if everyone is more or less at the same le by gelfling · · Score: 1

    The odds of them being within a million years could be even less. We have no model for figuring the continuence of our or any other culture for a million years or any idea that if not when the age of man ends it is replaced with something LESS advanced. Who's to say that in a million years the dominant life form won't some kind of intelligent shellfish? There's no way to know but importantly there is no reason to assume that million years advanced earth dwellers resemble anything remotely close to us. There is no way to estimate how long the technological culture of Epsilon Eridani 5 is going to last either. It may have come and gone a million years ago and they took a look at earth and realized it was pre-intelligent or at best just not worth looking at.

  237. and what will they think.... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    ...and will they think we're a planet of serial killers when they're asked to play Doom 6?

  238. The real question is... by kannibul · · Score: 1

    Will the lag time be low enough to play Doom 5?

    Who's side would they be on....

    Hmmm....

  239. Looking for aliens by star constellations by zyche · · Score: 1

    One thing I have thought of is that an sufficiently advanced race could have the technology to either move stars or simply igniting them as supernovas.

    By doing this in patterns, a message, or atleast proof of tampering, could be created. Perhaps a subproject for Seti to work at?

    I guess we all know the message we'll find though... "FP!"

  240. Re:Allien fobia (sic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His point was apparently that non-modern thinkers can also be xenophobes.

  241. The Harm In Looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree it's a long shot, but what's the harm in looking?
    Looking takes resources, and resources are finite. Those resources, directed in a more practical direction, might even facilitate an earlier rendezvous with ET. A simple analogy: From the dawn of time, mankind may have aspired to reach the moon. Over the centuries, we applied our limited resources in a variety of ways. In the end, technology was advanced to a point where reaching the moon was indeed very plausible through rocketry, and the trip was made. Now lets go back to the dawn of time, and lets say part of the people that contributed their resources to developing technology, the same technology that in our reality was responsible for getting us to the moon, lets say these people instead contributed their resources to a futile project to provide direct access to the moon using technology that was readily available at the time; a tower. In the end, the tower would never reach the moon, and technology would still advance to the point that rocketry would still be responsible for our lunar voyage (although probably at a relatively later date). Would there have been any harm in the long shot, the tower to the moon? Is there any harm in SETI? Perhaps if our resources were limitless, and the persuit of a project like SETI didn't potentially take away from resources for more worthwhile projects, then I might not be arguing that the harm is in fact there, and very, very real.

    1. Re:The Harm In Looking by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " Is there any harm in SETI? Perhaps if our resources were limitless, and the persuit of a project like SETI didn't potentially take away from resources for more worthwhile projects, then I might not be arguing that the harm is in fact there, and very, very real."

      I don't quite agree with this logic. I mean, there's a matter of priorities. However, today, those priorities still seem to allow for the existence of Seti. (It'd be stupid to run it if we were fighting an army of Terminators, for example.)

      The problem with what you're saying, at least in the case of taking it to an unusual extreme, is that the result is that we only look for stuff we know we can find. We simply cannot be that efficient at allocating the resources to only the right areas. Suppose in the tower example you provided that it failed, but radical new engineering enhancements were made that made buildings more earthquake proof? Who would expect that building such a seemingly dumb project would make Earthquakes more survivable? Nobody can predict that.

      Resources are limited, they'll always be limited. Investments (even gambles) need to be made that new discoveries will come about. If we stick to making decisions based strictly on what we know, then I would fear the risk of exhaustion of our resources because too much time was spent on predictable outcomes.

      Hope that makes sense, and I hope you can forgive the "taken to extremes" rebuttal.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:The Harm In Looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bring up valid points, and even I might consider my own argument rather extreme if it weren't for the rate at which technology is currently advancing. Who's to say that 20 years from today we don't have fundamentally new ways of looking for ET? Would it have been practical for Galileo to be looking for ET with one of his telescopes? I feel that it's not much more practical looking even now with today's technology. Perhaps if SETI had a history of generating great spinoffs like NASA does, or if the rate at which new technologies are developed had at least leveled off, I might condone continued investment in an active search for ET. But as it stands, I feel that SETI might be better off focusing at this point entirely on improving their ability to find ET than acutally using resources to try to find them; maybe then they would be making progress in small increments rather than waiting for the holy grail.

  242. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  243. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  244. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    As I mentioned in reply to another post, you are equating 100 years forward with 100 years backward..

    And as I said, you haven't given one spec of data to back up your claim that technology increases exponentially, and that this increase would cause any problems at all with peaceful or agreesive contact between us and a hypothetical alien civilization.

  245. So many questions unanswered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many questions arise from this:

    Will the babes look like from Aliens or Amazon Women on the Moon?

    When can we expect the warp engine design to be completed?

    Can we get a Stargate of our own after this?

    Who will represent us in the Galactic Empire Senate? Not Bush, I hope.

    Will rednecks keep claiming they are special for being the only ones who see the aliens and are probed by them?

    Oh, well. Whatever... I just welcome our alien overlords.

  246. Or, what might they do to US afer first contact... by rump_carrot · · Score: 1

    Once in L.A. after a rollicking night out, I was riding my bike home with my girlfriend. It was 2 AM. We had our blinky lights on. There was absolutely no one else around on Santa Monica Blvd.

    Then, it dawned on me - who the hell has blinky bike lights on at 2 AM, except uber-nerds?

    Were we just blinking "beat me up, steal our bikes, we are defenseless uber-nerds? "

    So, we turned them off, and felt safer riding home.

    Wonder if some of our extra-terrestrial searching efforts may be viewed in a similar vein.

    What, me worry?

    --
    I think, therefore I thought.
  247. What if we ARE ALREADY part of the spread? by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Suppose we were colonized by some brotherly (fatherly?) entity (such as via living cell deposits in the fresh ocean, which were somehow known would evolve into more complex organisms in this environment) and we are simply temporarily ignorant of our relation to "the rest of our civilization" because there is something significant about "growing up unique and without outside interference", but that at some point in the future "the news will be broken to us", along the lines of a child one day being "old enough" to learn about sex from the "elders", even though the sexual potential was actually there all along? Along those same lines, perhaps it is possible for a civilization to learn of such a relationship "prematurely".

    1. Re:What if we ARE ALREADY part of the spread? by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      It would most likely be a motherly entity.

  248. Kirk by DaveS002 · · Score: 1

    Beam me up Scotty....there's no intelligent life here!!!

  249. Extraterrestrial Disaster Scenarios by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just a thought - is there anyone on earth working through not-so-positive first contact scenarios? I know the US government sponsors groups that work out worst-case scenarios with regard to war and terrorism. Does NASA cover this kind of stuff? What would we do if we were confronted by a hostile race with technology vastly superior to ours? If we had to, are we even able to hit an object in orbit with a cluster of nukes? I don't think that it's remotely probable, just more interesting than work on a Friday afternoon.

  250. What this long-time SETI user thinks... by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    I've been computing for SETI since it started,
    and with my few home computers, and a
    little help from the odd work machine now and then,
    I've recently hit 12000 work units!
    Also, I got a dual 2.0 G5 recently and it works faster
    than all my other machines combined
    (2xG3 333, G3 450,2xG4 450) on SETI (on the average)
    While I think the probability is high that there is
    other intelligent life out there, contacting them by
    2020 seems a little optimistic!

    However, if we make contact in my lifetime,
    I'll be shittin' my pants with everybody else.

    I was really fascinated by the news
    that the data had other uses, as well.

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  251. Or, we were actually colonized and... by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    ...left to evolve alone for a while due to some as-yet-misunderstood need for uniqueness, civilization ego development, "learning everything the hard way" or some such end.

    Imagine what it would have done to the "worldwide ego" if our entire history was simply a footnote within the shadow of some much greater collection of civilizations that we are actually a part of. Imagine that instead of society learning all the collective lessons it has in the past few thousand years, it was all taught to us via some high-tech method.

    Perhaps we have actually been colonized, but then left alone to evolve for some reason. Until some point in the future.

    In any event, I think Seti@home is ridiculous because surely, future communication is data-compressed and the best compression methods produce data that cannot easily be distinguished from random space background noise.

    1. Re:Or, we were actually colonized and... by kabocox · · Score: 1


      In any event, I think Seti@home is ridiculous because surely, future communication is data-compressed and the best compression methods produce data that cannot easily be distinguished from random space background noise.


      There you go. Who knows what we may discover by having our most powerful computers scan and decode random noise! I think this field has a huge potential for growth if any thing actually comes out of it.

    2. Re:Or, we were actually colonized and... by cmpalmer · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100% *except* that SETI is also operating under the assumption that ETs want to talk to someone, or at least broadcast "We are here!!".

      I don't think anyone expects us to pick up scrambled Vogon ship-to-ship transmissions.

      --
      -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
    3. Re:Or, we were actually colonized and... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wonder if anyone has suggested to SETI about scanning in our RF noise that we generate and attempting to find something useful out of it.

      Have you ever just stared out the clouds and watched them make pretty shapes? I think that is basicaly SETI. I just hope that some folks get inspired by the pretty shapes.

    4. Re:Or, we were actually colonized and... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps we have actually been colonized, but then left alone to evolve for some reason. Until some point in the future."

      Hmm. Annunaki, perhaps? Supposed gods picking up their followers in "fiery chariots"? Cave paintings and sculptures of humanoids and their flying craft? You suppose? Then again, there's always the *logical* explanation...that sci-fi storytellers have always existed in human cultures... Right...

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    5. Re:Or, we were actually colonized and... by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

      I'm actually thinking more along the lines of, if our entire history was overshadowed by the achievements of our "forebear" civilization, and all our knowledge was handed down to us... what that would do to our collective ego in a long-term, "contributing something meaningful, unique and significant to the rest of the universe" sense.

      Look at the families out there where a younger brother has forever lived within the shadow of the achievements of an older sibling, and in failing to attain equivalent recognition, has fallen into self-debasement.

      It may be tough to be proud of ourselves if we know we're not first. And in having our pride robbed from us, it might damage our potential.

      Not something out of one of Tim Lahaye's books ;)

    6. Re:Or, we were actually colonized and... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      But it is something out of David Brin's.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  252. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You want the lightspeed thing to go away, don't you? Unfortunately wanting counts for nothing, and there's not a shred of evidence for that, and plenty against. Even given nigh-infinite knowledge, physical limits are physical limits.

    Wormholes may or may not be good for this, nevermind who knows what else out there we don't know about yet...

  253. SETI a waste of time by soldeed · · Score: 1

    The ET's already know all about us! They will ALLOW contact when they feel we are ready for it, or we force the issue by spreading out into space. Until then-NADA!

    1. Re:SETI a waste of time by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      They will ALLOW contact when they feel we are ready for it, or we force the issue by spreading out into space.

      Well, then. Let's force the issue.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  254. Invalid assumptions by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

    As others have said in different ways, Fermi's Paradox makes certain big assumptions.

    The main one is that an intelligent race would want to spread accross the galaxy or universe. A race capable of doing that would need to be more advanced than us. What possible reason would they have for colonizing every planet they could get their hands on? If they've mastered interstellar travel, then the odds are good that they've found a solution to overcrowding, etc... And it is pretty unlikely that they would have advanced that far and still be driven by greed and avarice.

    The other big assumption is that we'd actually be able to detect them. Maybe another race has colonized the entire universe. We've just barely begun to detect planets outside our solar system. Maybe once we have a telescope powerful enough to see one of these planets we'll see it covered with cities or whatever. Maybe they've left our solar system alone to give us a chance to develop on our own.

    The most likely situation, given the age of the universe, is that they are billions of years ahead of us. If that is the case, then the intelligence "gap" between us and them is about a thousand times greater than the gap between humans and bacteria. When was the last time you tried to communicate with a bacterium? When was the last time a bacterium was able to detect the fact that the entire Earth is colonized by Humans?

    Believing Fermi's Paradox requires you to assume that aliens are basically very similar to Humans, but with spaceships. Not likely, except in Hollywood.

    1. Re:Invalid assumptions by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      The answer to ALL of these objections of the class, "Well, maybe race X did Y" is...

      It only takes one.

      It's also an assumption that intelligent life will continue to evolve into something "else" beyond meat. There is very little justification for this view. It's much more likely that we will reach a state of knowledge equilibrium, where new things are discovered very, very rarely. At a certain point, we'll probably just exist, generation after generation, certainly genetically modified, but probably not beyond what makes us human. Smarter, prettier, more athletic, but still human.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Invalid assumptions by Saeger · · Score: 1
      At a certain point, we'll probably just exist, generation after generation, certainly genetically modified, but probably not beyond what makes us human. Smarter, prettier, more athletic, but still human.

      Wow - you actually assume that humans will NEVER EVER improve upon their own evolved design? That we'll NEVER unlock the mystery of the brain and TRANSCEND to better post-human forms?

      That's a mighty big assumption on your part; our exponential technological progress is plenty justification that we'll get there sooner rather than later.

      So why are you such the bio-chauvinist? Religious reasons? Or are you just not psychologically willing to accept the possibility of something other than the age-old bio-human life?

      Biology is not destiny.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:Invalid assumptions by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Wow - you actually assume that humans will NEVER EVER improve upon their own evolved design? That we'll NEVER unlock the mystery of the brain and TRANSCEND to better post-human forms?

      Yes, we will unlock the mystery of the brain. No, we will probably not "transcend" to better post-human forms.

      So why are you such the bio-chauvinist? Religious reasons? Or are you just not psychologically willing to accept the possibility of something other than the age-old bio-human life?

      No, simple logic. Most parents are not going to modify their children into inhuman freaks that can't mate with normal humans. Make them smarter? Yes. Make them better looking? Yes. Even embed computers into their brains to give them the best of both worlds? Yes. But not make them into freaks.

      Oh, I'm sure some might try and create some new "master" race. But it's not that easy, and it's extremely likely that it would be outlawed before they got very far.

      You've been watching too much star trek. There's more to life than downloading our brain into a computer. Part of what makes us human is the meat... the hormones, the reactions, all the complex inputs.

      Bottom line, there's nothing really to "transcend", whatever that means. Transcend what? Happiness? Emotion?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Invalid assumptions by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "The most likely situation, given the age of the universe, is that they are billions of years ahead of us. If that is the case, then the intelligence "gap" between us and them is about a thousand times greater than the gap between humans and bacteria. When was the last time you tried to communicate with a bacterium? When was the last time a bacterium was able to detect the fact that the entire Earth is colonized by Humans?"

      That sounds like an observation made by Douglas Adams about humans. When was the last time you went to a dinner where humans had bothered to invite their closest relatives [chimps] over?

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    5. Re:Invalid assumptions by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

      Bottom line, there's nothing really to "transcend", whatever that means. Transcend what? Happiness? Emotion?

      That's an unbelievably short-sighted view. How about transcending old age, death, disease, injury, hangnails, and bad hair days? Why would anyone assume that the entire human race will always just accept that we can't get any better (aside from being smarter and better looking)? We have some serious flaws -- the main one being that we tend to DIE at a certain point. You don't think that maybe some people would like to get past that pesky little detail of the human condition? Well, I would. So if the technology becomes available, and it almost certainly will, then some of us are going to be interested.

      I think that you are actually the one who has watched too much science fiction. You call someone more advanced than a human a "freak." Forget about cyborgs and terminators and half-human-half-machine science fiction. There are so many more exciting and realistic possibilities. How about nano-robots that live in our cells and make us completely immune to disease, aging, and practically all injury by constantly repairing the cell tissue? What's impossible about that? Why wouldn't we want that? People are working toward that goal at this very moment. Maybe it's 50, 100, or 1000 years away, who knows.

      I have no comment about the "master race" remark... that's way out in left field. I'm talking about humans making themselves better, not creating better offspring. The possibilities are exciting, unless you convince yourself that we'll never get there. Not many people seem to be convinced of that, though, given the progress in nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and medicine that's happening more and more rapidly every day.

      It might not even require anything as drastic as nanotechnology. The research on the C Elegans worm has already shown that genetics can be manipulated to triple an organism's life span. It's a near certainty that we'll figure out how to live a really, really long time. And if I'm lucky enough to still be alive to benefit from that discovery, I plan to devote a few of those extra centuries of my life to exactly the kinds of incredible things that you claim will never happen. What else are we going to do with all that extra time? Sit around and be content with staying exactly the same (except a little prettier and a little smarter?) I think not. Expand your horizons a little.

    6. Re:Invalid assumptions by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

      It only takes one.

      I'll assume that you mean that it only takes one race bent on dominating the universe. It takes a few more things, obviously. That one race of evil bastards would have to be unopposed. In other words, there would have to be no other race more advanced than them trying to stop them. And, like I said before, this race of conquerors would still need some motivation. There simply isn't any. I mean, let's put it in perspective by imagining that a hundred years from now, we (humans) develop the technology to travel through interstellar space. It's unlikely to think that our primary mission will be saturating every planet in the universe with humans. What would it gain us? And even if we did decide to do that for some reason, would the other, more advanced races out there allow it? And, if there aren't any other races out there, then there's even less reason for us to start colonizing other worlds. If we're the only life in the universe, and there's no one to stop us, then why the hell would we bother racing around and planting our flags in other planets? We'd already own everything, by default! We're the only ones here! Either way, there's just no reason for us (or any other race) to spread out and conquer the universe.

      And, on the extremely remote possibility that there is some other race out there that would do it just for fun, or just because it's in their nature to spread out and colonize, it's also overwhelmingly unlikely that they would either a) be the only other race in the universe or b) be the most advanced and unstoppable race in the universe.

      And, the final nail in Fermi's coffin is (as I said in my original reply) that we don't even know that the entire universe isn't already colonized! We haven't actually laid eyes on one single planet outside our solar system yet. So even if the most unlikely of all events has happened, and some race of evil conquering bastards has taken over trillions of solar systems throughout the universe, without being opposed by some other race, we wouldn't even be aware of it, unless they stopped by Earth to let us know about it.

      Fermi's Paradox would be equivalent to the Native Americans a thousand years ago saying, "Well, we are certainly the only life on this flat planet of ours, because if we weren't, some other race would have already come here and conquered us all."

    7. Re:Invalid assumptions by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      How about nano-robots that live in our cells and make us completely immune to disease, aging, and practically all injury by constantly repairing the cell tissue? What's impossible about that?

      I didn't say that was impossible. But that's hardly "transcending" whatever it means to be human. That's just making us live longer, which will obviously happen. Heck, it's already been happening for the last 1000 years.

      You seem to be backing away from your initial argument. I've already said that humans will improve themselves, but not past the point of still being human.

      If you're going to limit what "transcend" means to mere immortality, then we're not in disagreement.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  255. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by xiox · · Score: 1

    You assume we will stay in our current form in the future. Presumably the bounds of acceptable genetic engineering will widen, so humankind could diverge and expand abilities. It may also be the case that computers will become advanced enough so that personalities can be uploaded/created on computer. Given more computer power thought power would have few limitations.

  256. Just in time! by N3rdm4n · · Score: 1

    To play Duke Nukem forever with our newly found friends. Still, the lag will be kind of extreme for this endevour, no? Personally, I think aliens are vaporware.

  257. Get your facts straight! by Physics+Nobody · · Score: 1

    It's been only 30 years away the whole time!

    --

    Physics is good

  258. coseti.org by qwasty · · Score: 1

    coseti.org promotes the optical approach to seti, which makes a great deal more sense than radio seti. Anyways, I don't plan on posting again here, so I'll quickly mention the #setiathome chan on EFnet, in case anyone wants to IRC the topic of SETI.

  259. Exponential Scientific and Technological Growth. by God+speaking · · Score: 1

    Bingo. Considering advances in string theory (T-duality -> large extra dimensional branes...), I'd say there's a good chance we won't even choose to exist in boring old 3+1 spacetime in 100 years. Observers that grow more complex in time form the largest subset of the mathematical ensemble, which is why what it is to exist is to be conscious observers. I've got a new paper -Statistical Metaphysics - about this stuff on my website, you should check it out.

    --
    All Abstract Structures of Objects and their Relationships exist.
  260. No way to get there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe there is life out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's possible to travel across the stars.

    Maybe the speed of light is a hard limit for people (as opposed to clever physics tricks).

    Maybe there are no Star Trek style "inertial dampers", that allow soft squidgy human bodies to accelerate to those speeds in any reasonable timeframe.

    Maybe there's intelligent life all over, but it's so far away, for all species, that it'll never amount to anymore more than an, "oooh, isn't that interesting."

    Perhaps not the romantic notions we're looking for, but one of many possibilities, perhaps.

  261. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by painandgreed · · Score: 1
    No, I talk briefly about their ability to change the genetic makeup due to technology. Uploading to a computer would definaltly be a change in genetic makeup. If such a thing is done, then they most likely remember it being done and preform the same operation on humans if so desired. Once you gain the ability to expand beyond the original genetic makeup* of your species, then the differences between yourself, your former self, apes and ants means even less because the same can be done to any creature. It can possibly be done from nothing at all, creatig life from scratch. once again, how we are treated by such a race will not depend on technology, but culture and philosophy.

    *I feel like I should plug one of my favorite authors, Bruce Sterling, and my favorite series of stories by him, dealing with the Shapers and Machinists.

  262. Re:There are not aliens (except in citizenship sen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Created in his image" doesn't necessarily means appearance. If god's a spirit creature or an intangible omnipresent omniscient omnipowerful entity, there's a pretty good chance he doesn't look like anything that a human could recognize.

    "God's image" could mean temperment. Humans are capable of expressing every attitude displayed by god in the bible.

    Creative Impulse - Genesis

    Jealosy - No gods but me

    Temper Tantrum - the Flood

    Anger - 40 years in the wilderness because people complained about the food

    Genocidal tendencies - The time the Israelites were told to slay every one, man woman child and all their livestock

    Kindness - euthenizing Enoch because of all the wickedness

    Moral Indignation - burning Sodom & Gamorrah to the ground for their sexual indiscretions (think goatse before the internet)

    Testing of Loyalty - Testing Abraham to see if he'd kill his son just because he said so.

  263. Why not 2019? by imstanny · · Score: 0

    oh, wait, aliens like round numbers... i forgot.

  264. Radio???? Fools..... by funkdid · · Score: 1
    Back in the day Cave men banged rocks together and sent smoke signals, figuring alien life would look for that, as they did when trying to locate someone.

    Why would Aliens use radio waves? My guess is that they would use some ridiculous HD holographic signal which allows our 5 sense (+their 3?) to be triggered by these images.

    And off on this planet somewhere there is an argument as to wether or not they should use some type of more primative means of communication. Those in charge point out that any civilization using a more primative means of communication would not be worth finding. (A planet of caddle for example).

    Thinking of how old we estimate the Universe to be, smart money says we are not the most advanced speces ever.

    READ Macroscope be Piers Anthony. It's a good book, and I'm to lazy to bring up any of the good points made by his book. -thanks

    --

    I boycott signatures

    1. Re:Radio???? Fools..... by funkdid · · Score: 1
      I meant "caddle" as in the alien.....

      OK it's been a long day, go ahead make fun.

      Mods: Que -1 for god awful spelling....

      Also, I meant "Macroscope BY Piers Anthony", wow it really has been a long day. OHHHHH there's a PREVIEW button.........

      --

      I boycott signatures

  265. Re:Bigger Deal: Singularity or Discovery of Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't that happen in the movie "Virus".
    It had Donald Sutherland & Jamie Lee Curtis, I believe.

  266. Re:Other predictions -- WWBS? by Optikal · · Score: 1
  267. Big deal... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    ... will they find WMD? Or my missing socks?

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  268. Frequency by o0zi · · Score: 1

    Who's to say that the aliens will communicate on the frequencies we're searching - they might even have a whole new way of communication that we've never even thought of. For us to have any chance of discovering extra-terrestrial life, the alien civilisation has to be at about the same level of technological advancement as us, and that's very unlikely.

  269. Not enough signal strength by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm a big fan of SETI, but they tend to downplay the fact that we're only likely to be able to pick up signals beamed directly at us.

    We can't currently pick up ET signals equivalent to what Earth is broadcasting to space, even if they were coming from Alpha Centauri; they're just too weak.

    This is an analog problem of signal to noise ratio, far more than anything else, so faster processing won't help a bit.

    A cryogenic Allen array (to minimize thermal noise), especially in space far from Earth, or on the far side of the moon, would help a tremendous amount.

    Usually discussions about SETI itself don't bring that up, because of issues of optimism and such, but it was easy to find web hits on the eseentially identical question: can ETs pick up Earth signals?

    "No", says this Seti League guest editorial "ET Detection of Earth TV Unlikely" that goes into a little technical detail.

    Similar comments by John Dreher, Staff Astronomer, SETI Institute, although he goes on to assume that ETs would be able to pick up weaker signals than humans are able to -- assuming implicitly that ETs will have better analog technology than we do (maybe they do, but that doesn't help us to do the same).

    What about ETs actually beaming a signal at us? Maybe they do so to all nearby stars, one by one. Maybe...would we do that?

    "...it has been agreed by all relevant groups that we should not be actively sending out messages to try to reach other civilisations", says another page

    Ok, so we would not be so foolish as to attract undue attention from an unknown and possibly hostile galaxy, but maybe ETs will be more naive than that. Or a lot more confident (play ominous music here ;-)

    So, bottom line, this is a cool topic, but are we planning to build a cryogenic Allen array in space in the next two decades?

    I think we should, but any predictions really should be based largely on that one issue.

    P.S. the recent lab verification of photons having orbital angular momentum, able to carry arbitrary amounts of information per photon, implies a new medium we'll need to check for ET signals. Maybe that's what all advanced civilizations use.

    See e.g. Photons Spin More Data

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    1. Re:Not enough signal strength by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a big fan of SETI, but they tend to downplay the fact that we're only likely to be able to pick up signals beamed directly at us.

      That may be true now, but not necessarily in 20 years. Heck, in 20 years we may discover a more practical way to transmit over vast distances... and suddenly discover aliens are already trying to communicate with us.

      Or maybe not. A lot can change in 20 years though.

      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    2. Re:Not enough signal strength by flewp · · Score: 2, Funny

      That may be true now, but not necessarily in 20 years. Heck, in 20 years we may discover a more practical way to transmit over vast distances... and suddenly discover aliens are already trying to communicate with us. And soon after, the first intergalactic Counterstrike games will begin... Of course the latency would be horrible, but it's bound to happen.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    3. Re:Not enough signal strength by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
      Heck, in 20 years we may discover a more practical way to transmit over vast distances... and suddenly discover aliens are already trying to communicate with us. Or maybe not. A lot can change in 20 years though.

      Sure. Anything can happen. The sun could unexpectedly go nova tomorrow, quickly refuting our understanding of stellar dynamics and nuclear physics.

      But the article is talking about prediction, and prediction really has no choice but to extrapolate from what we do know. Otherwise, it's not "prediction", it's "hoping".

      So given what we know, the only way to pick up weak ET signals, such as Earth gives off, is to build a very large cryogenic Allen array in space. Like I said. Which unfortunately is not yet planned.

      So presumably the author of the paper that this article is about, is simply assuming that ETs are beaming signals straight at us, which is too unlikely to "predict", although we could hope.

      My post above basically is politely refuting the whole idea of "predicting" ET contact in 20 years. Without that space array, it's just not going to happen.

      But maybe the author also predicts we'll put up such a space array (I kind of doubt it, but let's give the benefit of the doubt).

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    4. Re:Not enough signal strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they did broadcast a signal with the Arecibo telescope when they first built it.

      quote from here:

      The broadcast was particularly powerful because it used Arecibo's megawatt transmitter attached to its 305 meter antenna. The latter concentrates the transmitter energy by beaming it into a very small patch of sky. The emission was equivalent to a 20 trillion watt omnidirectional broadcast, and would be detectable by a SETI experiment just about anywhere in the galaxy, assuming a receiving antenna similar in size to Arecibo's.


      Wow. So, why'd they stop? Afraid the Ur'Quan are going to stop by or something? heheh

    5. Re:Not enough signal strength by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
      [Regarding the single high power radio transmission toward possible ETs done long ago:]
      Wow. So, why'd they stop? Afraid the Ur'Quan are going to stop by or something? heheh

      Basically, yes. Some have argued that the odds are tiny that hostile aliens would harass Earth even if they wanted to, but the counter-argument is that we have no defense against any ET advanced enough to even get here in the first place, so why take any chances, no matter how small?

      Also, there are counter-arguments to support the position that any ETs that went to the trouble to come here would actually be likely to be hostile.

      Obviously no one really knows either way, but prudence essentially costs nothing.

      The Ur'Quan Masters

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    6. Re:Not enough signal strength by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      The article states:

      The time necessary for this formidable task can be estimated from the capabilities of planned radio telescopes- such as SETI's 1-hectare Allen Telescope Array and the internationally run Square Kilometre Array- and expected increases in the power of the microchips that sift through radio signals from space.

    7. Re:Not enough signal strength by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      So, bottom line, this is a cool topic, but are we planning to build a cryogenic Allen array in space in the next two decades? I think we should, but any predictions really should be based largely on that one issue.

      Oh yes, like NASA really needs another reason to spend $10 billion on something that really has no ROI. And we thought companies were bad at this, just look at NASA, and NOW we're condoning it. You may want to rethink what you want NASA to do. It would be better to reallocate their budget to something more useful here on EARTH, like education, defense, and medical research. God forbid we work on something that could educate people and save lives, instead we waste money on something that for most people has no ROI or any other advantages or benefits.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    8. Re:Not enough signal strength by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Of course, by the same logic, they could well be a peaceful species that has never seen a war. Assuming they're hostile is placing human reactions onto a totaly alien species, which is flawed at its base. By not transmitting and missing them, we could well be missing out on a cultural and scientific flourishing just as easily as we are a war.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    9. Re:Not enough signal strength by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
      Of course, by the same logic, they could well be a peaceful species that has never seen a war. Assuming they're hostile is placing human reactions onto a totaly alien species, which is flawed at its base. By not transmitting and missing them, we could well be missing out on a cultural and scientific flourishing just as easily as we are a war.

      True. However, we are demonstrably more or less kind of getting by without the flourishing that might provide, whereas we couldn't get by in the worst case scenario where they destroyed us.

      Also, it's not really a completely unwarranted assumption, nor is it a matter of "human reactions". There are an extremely large number of examples in non-human species of inter-species hostility; examples of symbiosis are more frequent than was once thought, but tend to take very large amounts of time to evolve.

      There is also an argument that cultural and scientific flourishing is at its best when developed the hard way rather than borrowed. They're understood better, applied better, and engender, of course, more pride in accomplishment. There are claimed to be parallels on the subject on Earth, and of course the topic has been endlessly explored head-on in science fiction.

      It might also be the case that accepting knowledge from ETs would permanently end the development of alternate, potentially valuable developments of subjects (explored in Brin's universe).

      Anyway, both payoff and danger are unknown, but the maximum danger, as far as we know, is effectively infinite, so why be in a hurry to take that possible risk?

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  270. lameness filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too bad the lamness filter won't let me express my real feelings ..

  271. Re:Allien fobia (sic) by JivanMukti · · Score: 1

    Hey Traa,

    No need to apologize, this is a discussion board after all.

    Maybe I took your post about modern intolerance a little too personally. That was my half-joke / half-serious comment about Al Qaeda. i.e. wanting to destroy those who don't look/think/believe the same. Usually I hear those comments related to how bad the U.S. is; but then there's a strange silence about terrorists. I get frustrated because there seems to be little public debate on what to do about terrorism. And that's not to say there shouldn't be intelligent debate about the Iraq war too.

    No offence taken, and I hope I didn't cause any.

    Peace

  272. Will Never Happen . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Aliens figured out a long time ago how to block out SPAM and Earth has been on everyones Black List for a long time . . .

  273. Aliens are already here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I urge all of you to watch two PBS "Nature" documentaries:

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus/index.html

    and

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/suckers/index.html

    The filming shows some extraordinary intelligent behavior, whether during the courtship rituals in the shallow waters off the coast or surviving the deepest reaches of the sea. Placed inside odd shaped aqurium containers with thin tubes, octopuses would instinctively explore, sliding their into the narrowist of crevices. At a major public aquarium, an octopus actually crawled out of its container and invaded a nearby container containing crabs: Did it see the crabs and recognize them visually? The doucumentaries also show how octopuses can also change the bumpiness of their skin to disguise themselves to look like rocks, as well as change the color and reflectivity of their skin to match their surroundings.

    Many species of octopuses exist in the far deepest reaches of the ocean that are bizarrely unfamiliar -- ablino species that look like "fleshy" jellyfish with two flapping "ears", or the gentle "vampire octopus" with "teeth" instead of suckers on its tentacles.

    Folks, these ARE aliens. They are extremely intelligent, and some appear bizarre. But:

    (1) they don't communicate verbally
    (2) they don't have electronics
    (3) we as a human species EAT them (or some types of them), which is pretty horrible

    If we are going to search for life outside our solar system, we should always keep in mind that we have a responsibility to learn about and protect the various species of animals we already have here on Earth, and that "intelligence" demonstrates itself in a myriad of ways in different species.

  274. the truth by TLouden · · Score: 1

    Aliens are currently recieving transmitions from ages ago and have decided that we aren't advanced enough to worry about. By the time their reply comes humans will be long gone and the reply will be the only proof that we existed. These long distance relationships just don't seem to work out.

    --
    -Tim Louden
  275. What will make me more excited: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will make me more excited is when we start developing telescopes that can optically resolve earthlike planets at reasonable intersteller distances. I have seen estimations that this type of tech is not unimagninably far away...

  276. Preemption scenario is probably wrong by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1
    If the rate of formation of stable technological civilizations is sufficiently low, and the rate of interstellar spread of such civilizations is sufficiently high, there will only be time for one such civilization to emerge per galaxy. By the time the second one could emerge, the first one would have filled the entire niche.

    In this scenario, by virtue of the fact that we have emerged, we can conclude that no stable competitors have emerged yet.


    There are quite a few assumptions that have to be taken for granted to leap to that conclusion. For instance, in making the assertion "we are here, therefore we are the only ones", we implicitly disregard the possibility that we are being allowed to evolve [semi-] autonomously... After all, there does seem to exist some evidence that we have some anthropologists (or maybe just grad students) watching us...

    All kidding aside, it seems much more likely to me that the galaxy is so teeming with life that it would evolve a complex ecology of spacefaring species. Some hostile, some not, some predatory, some not, etc... The complex pressures of such an ecology would place severe limits on the rate of expansion of any one species. Such an ecology would also evolve strong ethics of behavior, punishable in the harshest of ways - these ethics (or laws) would emerge naturally from survival pressures as species work together to fend off predatory species, handle catastrophe and whatnot. It seems quite likely that Terra is known, but the various critters around have better things to do than (and perhaps even laws against) messing with another upstart species of anthropods sitting on their heals and playing with atoms for the first time.

    As for radio waves? Sure they would still be used in other civilizations. We still use the wheel and fire right? Civilizations evolve like organisms; everything that your chain of evolution made use of (up to and including the salt water that still chugs through your body in the form of plasma in your blood) is still in use in your body today.

    However, it seems to me that our current utilization of EM spectrum is poor - over time I suspect two things will happen to how we use EM: (1) We will encrypt everything for a wide variety of reasons and (2) We will likely use much more complex time and frequency spanning encoding techniques to make better use of spectrum. Both of these techniques lead to the appearance of white noise (or random signals). What SETI should be looking for, besides patterned signals, is even distribution of white noise across a broad spectrum - I suspect that will be a much likelier beacon from civilizations more advanced than ours.
    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    1. Re:Preemption scenario is probably wrong by Starcub · · Score: 1

      What SETI should be looking for, besides patterned signals, is even distribution of white noise across a broad spectrum - I suspect that will be a much likelier beacon from civilizations more advanced than ours.

      That's an interesting idea. However, I'm not sure we would be able to find such noise. I mean, if the spectrum that an alien race might use is broad enough, how would we be able to pick out the signal from backround emmissions? Intimmately related to that problem would be the problem of being able to decode intelligence from the transmissions. How would we be able to distinguish between say, hopping communications signals and oh, a solar burst somewhere, or whatever else?

      Some other considerations come to mind. Specifically, the assumption we are using is that aliens are using radio waves to communicate rather than other things. There would have to be some kind of limiting factor to the Drake Equation that would take into consideration that such communication is likely not going to be detectable from noise beyond a certain distance. You mentioned the possibility that we might evolve our own communications capabilities using newer technologies such as to make everything indistinguishable from white noise. So then time might also be a limiting factor to the equation.

      Say for example, we evolve to the point where we've learned that there is another intelligent civ developing in the galaxy next door, or that we might be the subjects of observation. I suppose that might impact our communications policies on a global level. Assuming the same of the alien societies, it's likely we might only be able to discover aliens within a specific and relatively narrow frame of time.

      In addition, technology might also influence the the probability of SETI discovering anything. Really, radio waves are a highly inefficient means of communication. I'm not sure we're even technologically close to being able to conceptualize methods of interstellar commnication. For example, what if we are able to develop "warp" technology? I'm sure we aould use it to packetize communications for the long haul, possibly deploying low level radio transmissions at the final destination. However, I suppose that if we were to develop in that manner, then we might also be able to take advantage of advances in quantum electronics to communicate in ways we don't even know exist presently. Just so, our ability to find intelligent life in outerspace might be severly limited in ways that the Drake Equation does not take into effect.

      It seems to me, that any civilization that is united in it's organization, such that technology and politics are married throughout is going to have an advantage in the universal pool of development, and once they get that advange, barring unfortunate circumstances, they will probably be able to keep it. If I were such intelligent life from another system looking at this earth today, I would probably make sure that I follow something similar to the prime directive.

    2. Re:Preemption scenario is probably wrong by uncadonna · · Score: 1
      There are quite a few assumptions that have to be taken for granted to leap to that conclusion.

      I tried to make my assumptions explicit. I am not leaping to a conclusion, I am suggesting a plausible hypothesis.

      I believe the usual sci-fi scenario of a hodgepodge of spacefaring races in a single galaxy is, on the other hand, totally implausible, based on pretty basic considerations of the evolution of ecosystems.

      The only hope for SETI, in my opinion, is that deep space travel is totally uneconomical for any civilization, no matter how long-lived and advanced.

      --
      mt
    3. Re:Preemption scenario is probably wrong by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

      I tried to make my assumptions explicit. I am not leaping to a conclusion, I am suggesting a plausible hypothesis.

      Ok, if you say so.

      I believe the usual sci-fi scenario of a hodgepodge of spacefaring races in a single galaxy is, on the other hand, totally implausible, based on pretty basic considerations of the evolution of ecosystems.

      such as?

      The only hope for SETI, in my opinion, is that deep space travel is totally uneconomical for any civilization, no matter how long-lived and advanced.

      I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that SETI will only find something if civilizations have trouble colonizing other systems? Because if civilizations can spread they will absolutely spread geometrically without bounds? You know, I have serious trouble with this concept. Preemption requires very specific civilization characteristics such as hostile colonization, faster than light communication (to keep the civilization one civilization), sparse intelligent life in the galaxy, disrespect for existing living planets, etc.. etc..

      Look around you. Earth is a nice simple model of what the galaxy probably looks like. It's almost certain to have a fractal resemblence - millions of ecosystems contributing to meta-systems, each maintaining a balance of many species that specialize in some fashion.

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  277. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    ... because birds didn't exist 1000 years ago in your weird little version of reality?

  278. How long after discovery... by jzarling · · Score: 1

    ... will it take for that first civilization to harrassed by the Nigerian scammers?

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  279. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    Re: "c", I am sure you have heard of the possibility of creating/traveling through wormholes. Again, the "c" barrier and "no way to overcome it, but the above" is all based on *current* knowledge of physics.

    Wormhole shmurmhole. You do know that travelling faster than light, however you do it, is the same thing as time travel (for some observers, effects occuring before the causes), and thus has insurmountable paradoxes. That is an experimental result that has been confirmed any number of ways, and any theoretical advance would also have to account for it.

    If you don't know your general relativity, go back to school, it was old physics in 1920.

    I'll say it again - basing your argument on wishfull thinking is a bad idea.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  280. All it would take... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...is one madman or extremist to make a trip to the Congo and get himself infected with Ebola Zaire, wait for the symptoms to get to the beginning "cold/flu" stage, then hop a flight from the Congo Airport to a major hub. By this time, he should be coughing, sneezing, etc over many people (whether he wants to or not), potentially infecting them (in fact, if he can do this in the closed body of the plane, it would be best, as those people will likely fly or go other places). If he gets enough people, and can get to a hub and fly from there, infecting more...

    Short story, by the time he "bleeds out", it will likely already be too late...

  281. Rare Earth by tylersoze · · Score: 1

    Anybody read Rare Earth? It makes a conceiving argument that animal life may be extremely rare, as opposed to microbial life, which may be extraordinarily common. Perhap even so far as there may only be *one* civilization per galaxy or maybe even in the whole observable universe.

  282. And the envelope please... by kaaona · · Score: 1

    Anybody care to wager that the SETI first message we actually decode won't be an offer for cheap Viagra?

  283. self-destruction by amyhughes · · Score: 1
    Self-destruction keeps coming up in this discussion. I don't think that's necessarily a likely outcome of technology alone. I think it's a not-too-unlikely outcome of technology and human nature, but that doesn't fully apply elsewhere, does it?

    Has anyone wondered what our own world would be like without testosterone?

    Amy

    1. Re:self-destruction by e40 · · Score: 1

      No precisely the answer to your last question, but it is close. Check out The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin.

  284. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  285. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  286. EXTREMELY alien by Theovon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you watch too much SciFi, you might get brainwashed into thinking that aliens might possibly look like humans.

    But the truth is, only the evolutionary history of earth could have produced humans. Slight changes at various points in our history could have radically altered what came to be the dominant life form and if that form was even all that bright.

    Some stuff I was watching on the Science channel recently explained that it was an ice age that created selective pressure in favor of hominids who were smarter, because our ancestors had to adapt to a changing environment faster than evolution could adapt. Only the hominids who could IQ their way around the problems (ie. invent clothing) were able to survive.

    Now, when it comes to aliens who evolved in an environment that is completely different from ours and with little or no possibility of us having common ancestors, you really can't expect much similarity.

    Now, we do live in the same universe with the same physical laws, which means they probably use some of the same chemistry. For instance carbon seems to be a much better basis for building life forms than the alternatives. Also, liquid water is a much better environment than the alternatives.

    We have to ask, for instance, if life can evolve in radically different temperature ranges. Can life evolve in liquid methane? How about molten iron? We do see some rather interesting "extremopholes" here on earth, but I suspect it's easier to adapt to an extreme environment than to evolve there in the first place. (That is, there may be life still on Mars from when it had liquid water, but it's a completely inhospitable environment for abiogenesis.)

    We assume that their math will be similar. I mean, if their technology is advanced enough that they could do, say, quantum computation, and they have electrons whose spin they can manipulate, well, presumably, they would have a concept that allowed them to distinguish between one electron, and then two electrons, and then three electrons. That is to say, electrons are discrete quanta, so if you're going to deal with them, you have to be able to count them. So we can assume that an alien culture will have that. But can we really assume that? What about a world 100% covered in water where live evolved in such a way that there aren't separate organisms, but really every living thing is just a part of the same continuous organism, where everything is connected in some way. If you evolved to live in a world where you perceive everything as continous and you therefore have no concept of discrete objects, then can you count? (I agree that there are some lousy assumptions here, but go with me here.)

    Much too much of our world seems fundamental to us because this is the environment we evolved in. For instance, predators had an effect on our evolution. Naturally, the aliens would have different evolutionary pressures... throughout all of the billions and billions of years in their evolution, completely different from ours. So, consider a world, for example, where metalic iron is sticking out of the ground all over the place. Think about how inhabitants would evolve to make use of this ubiquitous natural resource the way humans evolved to make use of wood and animal bones. (Or more fundamentally, how our cells evolved to make use of carbon compounds as building blocks.)

    Alien life could be so different that we might not even recognize it as life. No matter what you conjecture about what alien life might be like, if/when we ever do discover it, it'll be nothing like what you expect.

    1. Re:EXTREMELY alien by metamatic · · Score: 1

      See Stanislaw Lem's novel "Fiasco" for further relevant discussion.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  287. Re:Allien fobia (sic) by Traa · · Score: 1

    Hey Jivan,

    thanks for your response. Definitly no offense taken and didn't mean to cause any either :-)

    I'm with you on the terrorism discussion issues. I do discuss it with my american friends a lot (I live in the US but are from holland orriginally). I prefer to discuss it based on 'prevention' and 'defense'. How do we make people not hate us and how do we defend ourselves against people who choose to hate us anyway.

    Peace indeed!

  288. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "I am sure you have heard of the possibility of creating/traveling through wormholes. "

    yes, we have all watched Sci-Fi.

    There were thing we couldn't do 1000 years ago, and we still can't do. Going faster then the speed of light, for instance.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  289. Drake Equation is rubbish by popo · · Score: 1

    The Drake Equation was published long before the GHZ Theory ("Galactic Habitable Zone").

    The GHZ Theory starts with the Drake Equation and greatly reduces the number of planets capable of supporting life. The GHZ takes in to account that the distribution of elements and molecular combinations is not constant throughout the galaxy. We live in a small ring shaped zone that exists a fixed distance from the center of the galaxy which not only has a vast array of molecular differentiation and comparitively low radiation but (relative to the rest of the galaxy) plentiful distribution of most elements.

    While it isn't known what format life on other worlds will take -- it *is* thought that certain processes like lipid/water (or ammonic or similar) interaction would be required for a semi-permeable cell membrane structure to form.

    If the Drake Equation is recalculated with the GHZ being taken into account the number of potentially life sustaining worlds drops significantly.

    In my opinion SETI has long used the Drake Equation as mathematical self-justification. And conversely, by openly accepting the Drake equation's overstated likelihood of ET-life SETI would endanger its own existence.

    By the way I'm a big fan of SETI -- but hiding from issues isn't the way to overcome scientific setbacks.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  290. That's called religion, not evidence by popo · · Score: 1


    If you believe that human experience qualifies as evidence, then you cannot compare the comparitively meager amount of UFO "evidence" with the vast amount of "evidence" for God.

    Evidence must be provable and repeatable.

    UFO sightings are neither.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:That's called religion, not evidence by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      If you believe that human experience qualifies as evidence

      Of course it does. How else would it be admissible in a court of law? Human experience is one of the primary forms of evidence upon which our society is based.

      then you cannot compare the comparitively meager amount of UFO "evidence" with the vast amount of "evidence" for God

      It appears you are rather uninformed. I personally have thousands of pages of evidence on the UFO phenomenon. The amount of evidence is by no means meager. Secondly, God has nothing to do with this, so that is an incorrect analogy. God is in the metaphysical realm, therefore not directly observable. UFOs are the opposite. They are material objects observed in flight by various witnesses. As such, analyzing their behavior or origin bears no similarity to religion or God. What confuses the issue and probably what you were referring to are the various UFO cult movements. These are a small minority of people and most definitely do not represent serious people doing real scientific research into this phenomenon.

      Evidence must be provable and repeatable. UFO sightings are neither.

      What utter nonsense. Plenty of occurrences are not easily repeatable yet were acknowledged as fact once the evidence of their existence was carefully examined. Meteors falling from the sky, ball lightning, supernovae, etc. Just because it cannot be analyzed in a lab does not mean it doesn't exist.

      Like others unfamiliar with the vast body of evidence that does exist, you are content to write it off as nonsense without examining any of it yourself or exercising some original thought.

  291. McGonigle, by ELEMENO · · Score: 0

    I do not think that anyone could verbally express the amount that I hate you. Every idea that you have is hare-brained. Take this steaming pile of shit that you call a thought for instance: you advocate massive internal development of the theoretical and pie-in-the-sky pursuit of space travel of all God-forsaken things. You constantly litter slashdot with moronic limp-wristed whinging about starving and ignorant children and at the same time probably think that NASA is doing wonders for us all. You and people like you are the reason why This Nation has been accumulating massive debt since the turn of the century, and I'll give you a hint: Clintonian budget "surplus" never got us out of any hot water. God, you probably voted for George W. Bush.

  292. Inane by ELEMENO · · Score: 0

    Math shows that even at sublight speeds it should only take a few million years for a race to colonize a galaxy. So if they're out there, they should as next door as possible. Maybe they're waiting for us to say, "hello," first. It would imply a certain maturity on our part.

    I'm beginning to think that you've never had a thought which isn't utterly vapid. Math shows? What sort of math is that, McGonigle? Perfect will, single mindeset, and 100% utilisation put into scalar form for easy manipulation with algebra? Are you completely fucking stupid? That has to be one of the dumbest things I have seen this week, and the DNC has been moving into my area for the last several days. Where do you come up with these ridiculous and worthless thought exercises? Have you lost your sex drive? Does every pseudo-intellectual try as hard as you do, McGonigle?

  293. World without testosterone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the animals would live in peace and all the plants would be running scared.

  294. Alien Pr0n by computechnica · · Score: 1

    Maybe the signal will be from an alien communication satelite.

    I eagerly await our new alien Pr0n channels.

    1. Re:Alien Pr0n by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      3 tits and 3 vagi's.

  295. it will be on...... by compro01 · · Score: 1

    April 5th, 2063. we will meet ETs then.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  296. Pop Quiz - methodology problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are one of two people placed apart in a large darkened silent area, wondering if there is anyone else there, what do you do?

    1) Devote obscene amounts of resources to constructing ever more sensitive listening appartus?

    2) Make a noise.

    Duh...

  297. Would still require by sveinungkv · · Score: 1

    That estimation would still requre that inteligent alien lifeforms exists, and that the signals we get would truly be from aliens.

    --
    Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
  298. We ARE Tasty, with a slight browning: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, humans are supposed to taste eerily like pork: cannibal tribes in the Pacific called humans "long pig" ; pigs are used instead of humans in fire tests, because their flesh is so similar to ours and burns in a similar fashion/rate; some zookeepers supposedly do not feed raw pork to their charges for fear that they will take a liking to human flesh by extension.

    All of this, however, is blown away by the testimony of the Uruguayan football team on whom the movie Alive! is based: "the slight browning of the flesh gave it an immeasurably better flavor, softer than beef but with much the same taste."

    That settles it. We are cattle.

  299. We ARE Tasty, with some slight browning: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, humans are supposed to taste eerily like pork: cannibal tribes in the Pacific called humans "long pig" link; pigs are used instead of humans in fire tests, because their flesh is so similar to ours and burns in a similar fashion/rate; some zookeepers supposedly do not feed raw pork to their charges for fear that they will take a liking to human flesh by extension

    All of this, however, is blown away by the testimony of the Uruguayan football team on whom the movie Alive! is based: "the slight browning of the flesh gave it an immeasurably better flavor, softer than beef but with much the same taste." link

    That settles it. We are cattle.

  300. Who is this SETI I keep hearing about....? by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's time for my usual rant... SETI isn't a guy, SETI isn't an organization, SETI isn't a project. Saying "SETI predicts we'll find ETs by 2020" is like saying "Political Science ate tuna for lunch today"

    This prediction wasn't made by "SETI," it was made by a person, Seth Shostak. Seth Shostak doesn't work for "SETI," he works for an organization called the "SETI Institute." Some people at the SETI Institute do search for extraterrestrial intelligence, but I would guess that most do not. As a corellary to that, most people in the world that search for extraterrestrial intelligence professionally are not associated with the SETI institute.

    Seth is also an optimist and to some extent a salesman. He's not going to get donations for the SETI institute and the Allen Telescope by saying that it's never going to happen. Therefore he uses an optimistic Drake equation that results in 50,000 communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

    I, on the other hand, am more inclined to base my predictions on what we actually know, rather than optimism. My computation of the Drake equation puts an upper limit to the number of civilizations in the galaxy at 750,000. It also puts a lower limit of one civilization per 2 million galaxies. We don't have enough information to make a more specific prediction than that!

  301. EARTH'S first contact? by Xilo · · Score: 1

    Earth will make first contact with aliens within 20 years. Eh? Aliens will make first contact with Earth within 20 years. I.E., we'll use our super-duper radio telescopes to hear a strange signal that seems like it's possibly not terrestrial in origin.

    --
    Read; Write; Execute
  302. look man by mateomiguel · · Score: 1

    Just stop talking about this and take it on faith.

  303. AOL CD's by Evil+Butters · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be sad if our first received inter-galactic message was, "Oh! You're the planet that makes those shiny AOL CD's! -- stop sending them to us!"

    --
    Homer no function beer well without.
  304. SETI is not NASA by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
    [regarding "a cryogenic Allen array in space"]
    Oh yes, like NASA really needs another reason to spend $10 billion [...]

    SETI isn't NASA. Take a wild guess why it's called the "Allen" array. Ever hear of Paul Allen? He funded it, not NASA. Where have you been? NASA hasn't been doing SETI for ages.

    ...reallocate their budget to something more useful here on EARTH, like education, defense, and medical research. God forbid we work on something that could educate people and save lives, instead we waste money on something that for most people has no ROI or any other advantages or benefits.

    Oh, you mean like we did before NASA existed? Or like happened each of the numerous times that NASA's budget was sharply cut?

    And what are you raving about, anyway, "no other benefits" if we did detect intelligent ET life? That's insane.

    At any rate, I didn't say a word about spending tax dollars. And your raving would be naive even if I had. Go rant somewhere else.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    1. Re:SETI is not NASA by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say SETI was NASA but NASA would most likely be the one to implement such a system. Besides, even if they don't, my point still stands: they need to stop spending money on useless stuff "out there" and reallocate to useful things "down here".

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    2. Re:SETI is not NASA by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 1
      I didn't say SETI was NASA but NASA would most likely be the one to implement such a system.

      Since you don't want them to, you'll be happy to know that it has never been a political possibility for NASA to get $10 billion for SETI, and never will be.

      Look into the subject, and you will find out. That's why NASA stopped doing SETI in the first place; congress always hated them spending even so much as $10k/year on it, let alone $10 billion.

      So no, whether technically reasonable or not, NASA will never spend $10 billion on SETI.

      Besides, even if they don't, my point still stands: they need to stop spending money on useless stuff "out there" and reallocate to useful things "down here".

      That's not how the budget process works. Congress slashes NASA budgets, and the money goes to...ending starvation? No. Improving education? No. Health? No...guess. Pork barrel projects for their constituents.

      Saying "they should stop spending money on XYZ and reallocate it to useful things like ABC" is, I'm afraid, naive, no matter which XYZ and ABC you have in mind. That's just not how it works.

      More simply: NASA is not stealing money from your favorite programs. Killing NASA completely still wouldn't help your favorite programs. You're complaining about issues unrelated to your stated goals.

      Which is why essentially everything you've said is way off topic here; it's unrelated.

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  305. Re:Allien fobia (sic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a room, you two.

  306. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Starcub · · Score: 1

    At some point we will run out of basic principles to rediscover.

    You mean finding new applications for existing tech? Have you considered the basic principles themselves might evolve in new spheres?

    At some point we will run out of basic principles to rediscover.

    But even the pool of knowlegde of 'basic principles' is not static, let alone our ability to apply them. In my estimation it would be unwise to place unnecessary limits on thier growth. Science and human history seem to suggest that evolution is an eternal possibility.

    I'm sure that after the discovery of the sail, ocean travel and its benefits increased exponentially for a time--before finally the basic innovation ran its course, and was as fully understood as it could be.

    And then came the steam engine, nuclear power, etc...

    Why place unnecessary limits on the scope of your consideration? The basic principle can be applied in multiple technological spheres -- solar sails for example. And who knows what new frontiers might be revealed if man is permitted to advance sufficiently?

    Multiple core principles doubtless build upon each other, but eventually the rate of "invention" will decrease and slow.

    Only if one places unnecessary limits on the capabilities of human imagination, and that is something that is outside of human control.

    As the evidence suggests the contrary, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on you.

  307. Re:Or, there could be no aliens to contact.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    Only if one places unnecessary limits on the capabilities of human imagination, and that is something that is outside of human control.

    The universe exists in spite of us, not because of us.

    Our understanding of said universe has advanced at a phenominal rate lately--but it's been in leaps and bounds, not a constant or predictable curve.

    I challenge you to name one basic principle that we HAVEN'T got a fair grasp on. In the 18th century this was easy--flight, the power of the sun, electricity, etc., etc. In the 20th and 21st centuries, however, we've got a fair understanding of everything we see--and barring a major oversight, we are going to slow our current pace of "technological advancement" in a century or two.

    As the evidence suggests the contrary, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on you.

    What evidence? The basic technology in use today is hardly different than what it was fifty years ago, unless you only count the bleeding-edge. Heck, the rate of "advancement" was fastest in the early part of the 20th century, when nationwide elecricity, electrical communication, and fission all rolled out in the space of a few decades.

    The latter half of the 20th century is NOWHERE near as frentic a pace of advancement as the first half. My car, computer, telephone, house, etc. all were of a quite similar form and function in 1999 as they were in 1949, and totally different than what they would have been be in 1899.

  308. I take offence! by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    I also believe in divine creation of humans,

    So let me get this straight, you believe that we're the only civilisation in all the universe? Careful when you say that, it's a big place.

    I'm not making a comparison like "London is a big place", I mean truly mind-bogglingly huge. Our galaxy has a hundred times more stars than we have human beings on this planet, and they're on average about 6 light years apart. Even if the chances of our being here are a billion to one, that gives us several hundred civilisations to work with here.

    And considering that recent discoveries are showing that the liklihood of planets forming around a star are only about two to one, and one forming in the temperate zone where we live is probably at most about one thousand to one, rolling those dice a billion times is going to come up with a whole heck of a lot of life in the galaxy.

    Nevermind the rest of the universe, but don't you think that it would be a spectacular waste of effort on God's part to create a billion billion galaxies each with a hundred billion planets just so we have something to look at at night? Is God really so frivolous as to indulge the entire universe with only one thinking race?

    is helped out by the fact that we are so unique amoung all the species on earth.

    99.99% of our DNA is precisely the same in humans as it is in elephants. Every mammal and most reptiles on this planet have two eyes, two ears, four limbs, five fingers and five toes. We all have bones made out of exactly the same material, and nervous systems that work the same way. Human beings aren't totally unique, we're just a minor variation that worked out really well. About the only animal on earth we're unique in comparison to are insects and shellfish.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  309. Link by dfj225 · · Score: 1

    Here is the article I had in mind while I was writing this. It is an interesting read even if you do not agree with it.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0203/article s/heeren.html

    --
    SIGFAULT
  310. of course we'll be able to talk. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Independence Day taught us anything, it's that aliens are Mac compatible. Though sadly this means only "artistic types" will be able to talk to them.

  311. Re:There are not aliens (except in citizenship sen by DerWulf · · Score: 1

    you must be the first to diagnose 'The Lord' with genocidal tendencies. I like it. Maybe instead of building the tower of bables to reach him we should build the great chouch and wait for him to make an appointment ;)

    Not a christian

    --

    ___
    No power in the 'verse can stop me
  312. too late by xpyr · · Score: 1

    never looked up at the sky have we? Never heard of witness accounts? the name travis walton not sound familiar? they've already been here with us, we just have been too ignorant to realize it.