Slashdot Mirror


Distant Planet Imaging Project Gets More Funding

It doesn't come easy writes "NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts has chosen a proposal by the University of Colorado (UC) at Boulder to image distant planets around other stars for a second round of funding. Known as the New Worlds Observer, the UC project is for an orbiting, soccer-field sized "starshade" shaped like a daisy that would funnel light from distant planets between its petals to a second spacecraft trailing 50,000 miles behind. If the concept proves feasible, it could 'identify planetary features like oceans, continents, polar caps and cloud banks, and even detect biomarkers like methane, water, oxygen and ozone [...]'"

264 comments

  1. I just hope... by dptalia · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...we can see them building the invasion fleet in time.

    --
    Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
    1. Re:I just hope... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      ob: Hitchhikers Guide

      Just make sure that we have plenty of dogs available.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:I just hope... by Surt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unfortunately, you'll only be able to see them when they ignite their light speed drives. Those suckers are bright!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:I just hope... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even worse, if the invasion fleet really has light speed drives, we will first detect them when they arrive in orbit around Earth, before the light from their light speed drives reaches us. We're doomed. Or we can surrender and hope their culture has laws against mistreatment of pets. Woof.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:I just hope... by rovingeyes · · Score: 1

      Hope the women from "distant planet" (venus?) are sympathetic to us geeks!

    5. Re:I just hope... by frank378 · · Score: 1
      we will first detect them when they arrive in orbit around Earth, before the light from their light speed drives reaches us

      Uhmm... sorry but, wouldn't that make them faster than light?

    6. Re:I just hope... by Surt · · Score: 1

      That was supposed to be the funny of my post for the intellectually inclined (that if you just noticed their light speed drives starting up, you're in trouble now). :-)

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:I just hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Abstract for first published results of this experiment:
      We expected to identify planetary features like oceans, continents, polar caps and cloud banks. However, what we actually identified were features like hangar bay, communications mast, bridge deck and fleet insignia.
    8. Re:I just hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Allow me to be the first to say, "I for one welcome our new faster-than-light overlords".

    9. Re:I just hope... by gilboooo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we think nothing can go faster than speed of light (information itself and gravity waves seem to respect this until proven otherwise someday) we can believe they have ships (if they do exist and have ships) that cannot go over speed of light. It makes me think of the technology we can see in the books by Alastair Reynolds. Those books are written by a scientist and nothing in those books goes faster than speed of light. Ships are called "Light Huggers" and they take years to get close to speed of light, and years to slow down.

      So we might first see the light from their exhausts for a few years before any ship really comes close to us, if someday an alien ship would have to come by and if it doesn't go faster than light.

    10. Re:I just hope... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Ships are called "Light Huggers" and they take years to get close to speed of light, and years to slow down.

      In whose frame of reference?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    11. Re:I just hope... by gilboooo · · Score: 1

      Takes years outside of the ships.
      Most travels in the books takes years too.
      Decades or more outside. Makes the whole thing
      pretty interesting to have everything capped
      by speed of light.

  2. Sounds cool... by jamesgamble · · Score: 2, Funny

    But did they really have to shape it like a giant flower?

    1. Re:Sounds cool... by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      What other shape do you propose? Remember, it must be able to funnel light.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:Sounds cool... by jamesgamble · · Score: 0

      I don't know... a funnel?

    3. Re:Sounds cool... by jamesgamble · · Score: 0

      There is no need to be rude... If you do not have anything nice to say, why not just drop it? :) I was not trying to be an ass when I answered you.

    4. Re:Sounds cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What a great attitude to have! Questioning things is wrong, and you are an idiot for asking! If everyone thought like this, we'd still be living in huts, farming for a living, paying 10% of our income to the church and we would not be able to read or write. I feel sorry that you think this way, and I'm glad that theres people out there that question things. Grow up.

    5. Re:Sounds cool... by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 1

      Send me the $400,000 and I'll send you a nice proposal with a bunch of alternate shapes.

      Remember -- I don't take checks.

    6. Re:Sounds cool... by moogleii · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would a giant phallus be better?

    7. Re:Sounds cool... by CyricZ · · Score: 1, Troll

      Questioning things is an excellent thing to do. I wish that more people did it more often.

      However, in this case the questioning was based on a complete lack of understanding. Now, I don't have much of a problem with that. That's fine. It's when people provide stupid alternatives that I take offense.

      It was, like it or not, stupid to suggest that the design be scrapped and replaced with a large garage funnel.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    8. Re:Sounds cool... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just me, but the telescope array gave me herpes!

    9. Re:Sounds cool... by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Would the spaceshuttle taking it into orbit suffice? (didn't RTFA yet, so if it's not going up by shuttle, don't be a pedant, just laugh at the joke :P )

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    10. Re:Sounds cool... by kevinwal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You haven't answered his question. Why must it be shaped like a flower rather than a funnel? Not being a sophisticated equipment designer myself (I must have missed that requirement when I signed up for /. sorry) I'd like to know.

      You might have simply said, "Why, I don't know," rather than attacking the questioner's intelligence.

    11. Re:Sounds cool... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not posting this anonymous despite the hit it may take:

      Go through CyricZ's post history. You'll find it chock full of vague refernces to things that he has absolutely no idea about. Yet 9 times out of 10 it gets modded insightful. He takes a holier-than-thou approach despite the fact that he truly hasn't a clue.

      Yet karma +2. Says a lot about Slashdot.

      (ofcourse my karma is absolutely deserved )

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    12. Re:Sounds cool... by mandolin · · Score: 1
      I'm interested in the "giant" part, myself.

      What exactly does a soccer-field-size flower-shaped starshade 50k miles away buy you, vs. a tiny flower-shaped starshade 5 feet away?

      ... particularly if you want to reorient the thing to look at a different star system.

      I RTFA, but I seemed to have missed this part.

    13. Re:Sounds cool... by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Bigger means it's gathering more light from the (hopefully to be detected) planets, increasing sensitivity, no? At least, from how I understand it works...

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    14. Re:Sounds cool... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      You're being an asshole.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    15. Re:Sounds cool... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      If they did it as a giant phallus, then people might mistake it for one of the ancient gods from a dimension beyond our comprehension, like those in this video: http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/226663 (Click the "Watch This Movie" link to see it.)

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    16. Re:Sounds cool... by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      It is shaped like a flower rather than a funnel because that is the design the designers found would work best. The matter was investigated by professionals, and people who are experts at designing such equipment. I would trust their judgement on this matter over that of somebody who thinks it should be shaped like a garage funnel.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    17. Re:Sounds cool... by kevinwal · · Score: 1

      Jeez, a Valium with your morning OJ would do you a lot of good. He never said that he thought it should look like a garage funnel, he merely asked, "Why not a funnel?" And it's a damned good question, and one which you still haven't bothered to try to answer other than to say it's because they say so.

      Why a flower? Why not a shape like a funnel, or a garbage pail lid or a Waring blender? Why? It's the fundamental question of science, and the first step toward enlightenment.

      I sincerely wish you luck with your blind faith in the judgment of professionals.

    18. Re:Sounds cool... by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Why not a funnel? Because as stated earlier, the designers most likely looked into that possibility and deemed it unsuitable. They found that the flower shape would work best.

      Why not a garbage can lid? Again, because it does not fit the criteria. It does not work.

      Why a flower? Well, most likely because it suggests that it can be folded up, launched into space, and the opened/deployed. Sending up a fully formed, stadium-sized garage funnel is obviously a stupid thing to do if there are better alternatives (ie. a flower-shaped, deployable design) available.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  3. Yup... by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 1

    It sure sounds feasible to me. No alarm bells going off at all.

    All they need now is an artists impression of what it might look like.

    1. Re:Yup... by SysSupport · · Score: 4, Funny
      Here ya go

      *

      _

    2. Re:Yup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think they'll deal with all the light from the star diffracting around the limb of the planet?

    3. Re:Yup... by luna69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are some good ones. The guy behind this is a favorite former professor of mine here at Boulder, and he came to speak at our astronomy club meeting last fall about this project. He had a nice talk, with images, about this project.

      I don't have any quick links to good images, but I suspect they'll be available soon to the public.

      And just in case anyone was wondering, in addition to being really smart, he's also a really good guy who tells great war stories about NASA, science funding, etc.

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  4. Hey... by bc90021 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...I can see my house from here! ;-)

    1. Re:Hey... by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > ...I can see my house from here! ;-)

      ...proving (much like the General and Special Theories of Disaster Area Tax Returns) that the whole fabric of the space-time continuum is not merely curved, but is in fact totally bent.

    2. Re:Hey... by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      Where do you live?

  5. Why don't we... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop feeding a few well-fed children to get even more funding?

  6. nice by gcnaddict · · Score: 0, Redundant

    /passes a few lightyears from the sun, uses telescope Hey! I can see my house from here!

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:nice by sparr0w · · Score: 1

      but yet you failed to see bc90021's post making the same joke...

  7. CU not UC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    University of Colorado goes by CU.

    But cool project. It would be interesting to see what other worlds look like, not just know that they are there.

    1. Re:CU not UC by coyote-san · · Score: 2, Informative

      You beat me to it.

      For reference "UC" is California (UCLA for the LA campus, UCSD for the San Diego campus, you get the idea.)

      "UConn" is the University of Connecticut.

      "CU" is the University of Colorado, "DU" is the University of Denver.

      This sounds pendantic but searches for "UC" will bring up the wrong universities.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    2. Re:CU not UC by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yeah. What is funny is the browser icon even shows CU.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:CU not UC by spicydragonz · · Score: 1

      Another interesting item is that the N on the University of Nebraska football helmet stands for "Knowledge." Shoulder to Shoulder we will fight! fight! fightfightfight.

    4. Re:CU not UC by CyricZ · · Score: 1, Funny

      The word is "pedantic", not "pendantic".

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    5. Re:CU not UC by bobs2pacsvegaswirled · · Score: 1
      University of Colorado goes by CU.

      As do all of the original Big 8 schools without a "State" in their names. NU, OU, KU, MU, and CU.

    6. Re:CU not UC by ezweave · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is only true most of the time. For some reason the smaller (8-9 thousand students) campus at Colorado Springs uses both "CU Colorado Springs" and "UCCS". The Denver campus and the Health Sciences campus stick with CU. I don't know why they are inconsistent, blame the CU regents for that one.

    7. Re:CU not UC by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is also funny is that a giant telescope is being made by CU. *rimshot*

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    8. Re:CU not UC by CUShane · · Score: 1

      Here's the official explanation of the CU, not UC story: http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID= 600&KEY=&ATCLID=24650

      --
      CUShane
    9. Re:CU not UC by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Actually, CU is oddly mixed about this. For common parlance, "CU" is the preferred term. But there are a plot of places where "UC" is used internally. Campus boxes are "UCB" (University of Colorado Box"), for example. Or the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (UCHSC).

      Speaking as an alumnus, it's very tough to remember which order you use in a given situation. Although I can think of more annoying things about CU.

    10. Re:CU not UC by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      University of Colorado goes by CU.

      Do they have a New Technology Department?
      If not, they should get one.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    11. Re:CU not UC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder what Ward Churchill has to say about this...

    12. Re:CU not UC by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my bad.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  8. How will the religious establishment react? by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How will the religious establishment react to such discoveries? Suppose a distant planet with many of the features of earth (oceans, deserts, mountains, etc.) is found. But let's not go so far as to say that plant life (or something like it) is found.

    How would the religious establishment react? Such discoveries would, in effect, refute many of the religious claims.

    We have already seen pseudo Christians going to extreme lengths to ban the teaching of evolution in places like Kansas and Tennessee. Would they take a similar route were discoveries that didn't mesh to well with their teachings to be found?

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      How will the religious establishment react to such discoveries?
      Who cares?
    2. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by fieran_daychred · · Score: 1

      How will they react? God made the other planets, duh.

    3. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same way they did back when they insisted the universe revolved around the earth and that we were enclosed in a series of layered spheres. That is to say, torture, imprison and kill those who promote "science" that is not in line with theological teaching. And we have just the administration to do it with the recently supported torture laws to allow for it. :)

      Anyway, this does seem a little bit like getting a map of China when you don't even have the means of transportation to get past the 7-11 at the end of your street.

    4. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by temojen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would the discovery of other planets with earth-like features refute religious dogma?

      If there is an all powerful deity, surely it's within the power of such deity to create more than one earth.

      Genesis specifies how this earth was created. It says nothing of the existance or non-existance of others.

      It's kind of like how physics neither requires nor rules out any deity.

    5. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Any true American should care. After all, it is their children and grandchildren who many not receive a full education due to the religious beliefs of a small group of extremists. And in the world economy of today and most likely tomorrow, they will need to have such knowledge to just get by, let alone succeed.

      Powerful religious groups can often have a profound impact upon the development and progress of a nation.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    6. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 1

      Simple. We all know the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/ changes the signals and images and space and time itself to test us and challenge our faith.

    7. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a flamebait! Do you think ALL religious institutions will behave like THAT?

    8. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First off, this it not funded yet. In fact, part of me would rather that we go back to getting our budget balanced, which will take some hard choices. Sadly, we made those back in the 90's to deal with Reagan's deficits. Now it has to be done all over again.

      Second, who says that they will believe it? People today seem to have a unique ability to ignore evidence and truth.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I think guidance as to what would happen can be found in the life of Gallileo.

      Also, it's relatively unclear what religious claims are invalidated by the existence of extrasolar planets. Prior to the discover of non-human intelligent life on another planet, Christianity, for example, would have pretty much no difficulty. God put all those planets and life forms there for us to enjoy when we are sufficiently technologically advanced, presumably.

      Theologically, things don't really get interesting at all until you meet something non-human that seems to have a soul that needs saving.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All except for perhaps Scientology. They are the most open to honest scientific inquiry.

    11. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if I were an American that is what I would fear.

      Right now we don't have the technology to visit such places. But in perhaps 20 or 30 years we might. That's really not a very long time, all things considered. And with the pro-religion, anti-scientific stance of the current American administration, there's a very good chance that it won't be Americans visiting these planets for the first time. It may very well be the Chinese getting there first, just because they didn't let religion interfere with their technological progress.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    12. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny
      Just posted on FARK today: Vatican astronomer ponders baptism of extra-terrestrials

      That's right. You show me some ET's, and I'll show you some Christians that want to baptize them.

    13. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How have they reacted to discoveries in the past?

      Either :
      1: Lock the person up.
      2: Deny that the observation is real.
      3: Make up a fake observation to counteract the real one.
      4: Invade the plannet in the name of good wiping out evil.
      5: Pray they don't come and invade us, but put a few draconian laws in place just in case they do.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    14. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by jhamm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Simple - the religious establishment doesn't NEED an explanation. Followers will simply shift to "faith" to fill in the gaps. If that doesn't work, the most remedial explanation will suffice to keep believers in line. Here's a few that would probably work:

      "God never said that He didn't create OTHER planets in addition to the Earth."

      "The Bible was not 'literal' when it talked about Earth being the center of the universe."

      "God made other Earths after He made this one. Our Earth was the first."

      [Be creative - insert your own here]

    15. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by the+bluebrain · · Score: 1

      No worries, the missionary urge will kick in.

      If fundies (of any ilk) can squeeze, say, the bible through their own personal reality check, aliens won't be e prob.

      If all else fails, it's a test. The lord is testing us. He's big on that.

      --
      yes, we have no bananas
    16. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Troll
      Considering the religious establishment won't admit that according to the bible we're all the product of incest (Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. Cain found a woman and had a child. Where did the woman come from unless it was Eve herself? After all, nowhere in the bible does it say God created anyone other than Adam and Eve.) so I'm sure they could come up with some lame excuse as to how life on another planet is still the work of God even though the first two lines of Genesis specifically state it was Earth that was created.

      Though I have to admit it will sure be fun to see all the squirming and contorting that will take place from the religious establishment in trying to prove their point.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    17. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by op12 · · Score: 1

      Anyway, this does seem a little bit like getting a map of China when you don't even have the means of transportation to get past the 7-11 at the end of your street.

      But finding something interesting there could drive faster development of the means to get there.

    18. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by CyricZ · · Score: 0

      You want to balance your budget? I'm sorry to tell you, but the current administration has overspent so fucking much in the last half-decade that it'll probably take you guys decades to just break even again. And that's assuming you stop all useless spending now. Chances are that won't happen, and you'll be paying interest out the asshole for decades.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    19. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christan dogma states that humans are special chosen etc... If we found a higher life form then that would invalidate a large portion of their dogmam, but I expect they would still be in denial even if they teleported their way over to Earth and denounced all forms of religion as utter crap.

      'Genesis specifies how this earth was created. It says nothing of the existence or non-existence of others.'
      Genesis says how the universe is created to people of Jewish descendant (I include Christians along with Jews since Christ was supposed to be kind of the Jews)

      "It's kind of like how physics neither requires nor rules out any deity."
      Only to a few people who like to be religious, the kind of people who get confused by 'If a tree falls in the woods and no one is their to hear it does it make a noise'

      Physics (The first law of thermodynamics) just about proves that God has no influence on our lives, heaven doesn't exist, and humans probably don't have free will, yada, yada, yada.

      -2 Troll, ha, stupid religious nuts, -1 troll from a Bush voter is like penny's from heaven.

    20. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 3, Funny
      Eventually, we can look forward to:
      • Human missionaries attempting to convert aliens to Christianity.
      • Alien missionaries attempting to convert humans to their religion.
      What fun; hope nobody starts a war over it.
      --
      We apologize for the inconvenience.
    21. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by xtal · · Score: 1

      We will anxiously await sightings of the Jolly Roger, while dressed in full Pirate Regalia.

      How else would we react?

      --
      ..don't panic
    22. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How would the religious establishment react? Such discoveries would, in effect, refute many of the religious claims.

      Exactly how they've reacted for every other scientific discovery made in the past that contradicts religion - half of them will deny it, and half of them will quietly tell themselves that part of their religion is metaphorical (and always has been).

      We have already seen pseudo Christians going to extreme lengths to ban the teaching of evolution

      That's a perfect example. Half of them are denying it, and half of them are saying that Genesis is metaphorical (and always has been).

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    23. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by nharmon · · Score: 1

      > "The Bible was not 'literal' when it talked about Earth being the center
        > of the universe."

      Try, the Bible does not say the Earth is the center of the universe.

    24. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I forgot,
      6: Send out our own invasion fleet and try to convert them to our religion.
      7: Send out a specially encoded version of the watchtower and hope the invite us around to tea.
      8: Sit and think about it for a while, before becoming enlightened.
      9: Send out a map to Mecca and circumcise them all.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    25. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      Makes one wonder about whether baptisms must be performed with water, or is liquid Methane acceptable. Tough, tough questions.

      THose thoughts aside, I can recommend The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell which revolves around Jesuits and ETs. Good read.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    26. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Rei · · Score: 1

      It may very well be the Chinese getting there first.

      RUNtse de FWOtzoo, ching baoYO wuomun...

      Ok, I get dibs on Londinium. I want the shiny hat. :)

      --
      But this Rottweiler not only is snarling and frothing at the mouth; it also went to Harvard.
    27. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Chances are that won't happen, and you'll be paying interest out the asshole for decades.

      I am not convinced of that. Our current leaders have a long history of either bankrupting or getting help from Middle Eastern/Asian countries with their previous businesses. Considering that the Iraqi invasion will probably lead to the overthrow of a number of middle east countries (esp. the Saudis), I doubt that they will be in a hurry to help us. That is going to leave us one option.

    28. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2
      All except for perhaps Scientology. They are the most open to honest scientific inquiry.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Oh, that was good. $cientologists are about as anti-science as it gets. That's like saying Christian Scientists are real big fans of the medical community.

      Here's a hint. Just because the word "science" appears in some group's name doesn't necessarily mean they are open to to scientific principles or discoveries.

      Now I await the punishment of $cientologist moderators.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, you know how it goes... some planets take 7 days, some 8 or 9 days, a rush job God can do in, uh, about a day and a half...

      Are we forgetting that the bible claims our Earth is the center of the universe?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    30. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      I'll go for the "cargo cult" angle. If we see evidence of life on another world, many people will begin to worship them as gods that, no doubt, had some influence on our development.

      It would create 12 new religions overnight.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    31. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there are no others present, why does Adam worry that someone will kill him when he's evicted from the garden of eden?

    32. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by UOZaphod · · Score: 1

      Have you even read the bible?

      --
      "The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
    33. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they generally didn't document female births in the bible, so it is conceivable it was his sister. not that that is any better, but it's possible.

    34. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know very little of physics AND religion. Belief in the non-existence of a god is a belief as well, it cannot be proven either way (since a 'miracle' can be a highly unlikely event, or the doing of a much more advanced being, etc).

    35. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by neptune612 · · Score: 1

      They will change their dogma to match again like they have done throughout time. Why do you think Christianity has lasted so long. It is able to adapt and correct itself. DUH!!! In time though, it will too become mythology and another organized religion will take it's place, but not in our lifetime.

    36. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 1

      From this post: We have already seen pseudo Christians going to extreme lengths to ban the teaching of evolution in places like Kansas and Tennessee. Would they take a similar route were discoveries that didn't mesh to well with their teachings to be found?

      From another post in this thread you say to another poster:

      If they're going with a flower-shaped design, then there's most likely a very good reason for it. Considering that these people are far more intelligent than you, your idea is worthless

      Can you not see the irony here at all? It's exactly that type of attitude that Copernicus and Gallileo fought.

    37. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by OMRebel · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't change anything at all. I think your basic lack of knowledge of Christianity is really showing. Please specify the many religious claims that a distant planet that could contain life would refute. Evolution does not contradict Creationism. Evolution just says how life came to be, but it doesn't say why it came to be. It does not, however, disprove the message conveyed in Genesis that God created the earth and the life on it. The theory of evolution is also unable to explain why things took the course as they did, as it just explains scientifically how it happened, but not the question of why. Nor does evolution explain where and how any of this first started. Now, if you want to ask if evolution contradicts the literal translation in Genesis of "how" it happened, then the answer is yes. However, the principal and overall "theme" of Genesis in the creation of the world cannot be disproved, and to be fair, it cannot be proven either. The only thing that can be disproved is the literal translation - which comes from written text from a time period when minds were much simpliar, and things such as single celled organisms were simply too complex in nation to explain. In saying all of this, and the fact that only a literal translation of only book in a collection of many books can be conflicted, it is also possible that God was the force behind evolution.

    38. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it being implied through multiple references pretty much amounts to an endorsement.

      Oh, and the lack of discussion of possible other life forms existing elsewhere was just because (S)he was saving that for the sequel, Bible 2. preorder yours on amazon.com today!

    39. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I think once you establish in the story that good can create chicks out of man ribs, it becomes dull to repeat the story over and over. Cain found a woman. Maybe he did, and maybe he did not notice the missing rib, or maybe it was one of Abel's ribs. Could explain their little spat.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    40. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Or ... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) And the heavens includes other planets.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    41. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Surt · · Score: 1

      bleah, bad typo there. substitute god for good, though I suppose the two are supposed to be interchangeable anyway.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    42. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are we forgetting that the bible claims our Earth is the center of the universe?

      No, but some people do. There's no verse which says that.

      Having believed in Aristotle's constructions, many once thought it only reasonable to think that we were the center of the universe (after all, we *don't* exactly feel ourselves spinning or orbiting Sol, and they had *no* way to understand the mechanics of why we wouldn't feel that back then).

      As a matter of fact, it took quite a while after that for us to understand such things scientifically. A fact very often and conveniently forgotten by some.

      All they had to compare it to was a stone cast from a sling. As you know, all the while it spins, it is accelerating inward (held by the sling), and when let go it flies off at terrific speed. Trying to explain that gravity held us all down by deforming space-time [relativity] (or is it due to gravitons [QM]? or maybe M-theory [string theory]? we haven't exactly completely reconciled our views of gravity, especially with all the debates over 'dark matter' and such...) would have been a bit beyond the knowledge of the time.

      Hell, a complete description of it *still* eludes us :P

      And yet I suspect in the end we will find some kind of Godel paradox--the experiments required to completely understand the physics of the universe would require more energy than is available in our universe...

    43. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      ha ha :) what if the extraterrestrials cannot sin. in any way? just can't don't and never do? Why in the world would they care about any gods? :) What if they don't die?

    44. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by shawng · · Score: 0

      Yes, because as everyone knows, all of the world's major religions prohibit space exploration.

    45. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by jferris · · Score: 1
      Of course, we will have to work out something with a proper currency exchange prior to any diplomatic relations then, because I've never been to a Catholic church that doesn't pass that collection plate.

      Let's see... 143,300,203 Zorcandian Pesos is equal to one Mexican Peso...

      --
      You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
    46. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, your one of the people that slip into 'Genesis is metaphorical'

    47. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Surt · · Score: 1

      From your link:

      In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

      The heaven is everything 'above' earth's sky, including other planets and stars. So there you have it, theological quandary solved. And in the first 7 words no less!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    48. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ed Babinski wrote a good article on some of the problems presented with life on other worlds (start at "All kidding aside").

      The presence of even lifeless planets beyond earth was deeply troubling for early theologans, and the concept was widely denied for theological reasons. "Great lights" that light noone's sky. Tracts of land far greater than those on Earth, doing nothing, for noone - I.e., God creating in vain. If they did have life, they couldn't trace it back to adam, et al. Such a huge act of creation, and God didn't see if fit to put a word of it in the bible? There were all sorts of major problems, and it took a long time to get it accepted.

      --
      But this Rottweiler not only is snarling and frothing at the mouth; it also went to Harvard.
    49. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by DisownedSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably more like 200-300 years. The technical obstacles to interstellar flight are enormous. We not only don't know how to do it, we don't know how to get to the point where we know how to do it.

      But I think we will. Future technology is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

      --

      "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

    50. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Belseth · · Score: 1

      It's not Biblical Dogma it's medeval dogma that is still pervasive. It's the same beliefs that used to include the earth is the center of the Universe. Remember Europe is still called a contenient strictly for ego reasons. Disbelief in life on other planets isn't religous it comes out of fear and nothing else. The joke is the open minded fear that we are the only life in the Universe. I find that idea far more frightening than life on other planets.

    51. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Pssst...none of that stuff is supposed to be taken literally. The story of Adam & Eve as it appears in the Bible is one adaptation of a type of creation story that's existed for a long time. There is even a similar story that appears in some African cultures. We might as well start arguing about plot holes in the Simpsons or Star Wars...these stories point to some type of message and only serve as learning aids. That said, anyone who believes Genesis is a true story is an ignorant fool that deserves to be confused. Anyone that argues about Genesis on the presupposition that it is meant to be taken literally has been misinformed by the former.

    52. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAC (I am a Christian) and I believe that we are allowed to invoke the "Flying Spagetti Monster" rule and make senseless fun of your science-babble. So there. pffft P

      Seriously it would be wonderful if we could see other planets and other worlds - everytime we learn more about this amazing universe, we learn little more about God.

    53. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by khallow · · Score: 1
      I think most of them will handle it just fine. The reactionary minority will probably try very hard to discount this evidence. My take is that a lot of the problem would be that science not religion had discovered these new worlds, and that threatens some peoples' religious views. Perhaps, science is seen as a false authority that cannot ever be right.

      I expect that this will be portrayed as another NASA hoax.

    54. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by mohkev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be silly...nobody starts wars over religious differences! Oh, wait. Nevermind.

    55. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking worse than TripMaster Monkey.

    56. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If there is an all powerful deity, surely it's within the power of such deity to create more than one earth.

      It's also within his power to create purple giraffes with opposable thumbs. Many people however just don't like to believe that the Earth is NOT the center of their God's universe. Earth would then be demoted to the status of YAP (yet another planet).

      The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe calls into question our own place in it. If we are just one of billions of intelligent races, what does that mean for our own importance? Especially if some of these races are millions of years old, and were building starships before our solar system was even formed.

      Long ago, Earth was the center of the universe, with everything orbiting it. Then the Sun was the center, and we orbited it. Now, we recognize that the Earth (and Sol) is not anything like the center of anything. The next big epiphany that awaits us (maybe) is that we are not alone in the universe, and that we have to reconcile our planet's religions and stories of origin with this fact. That or go crazy. ("No, there is no alien from Alpha Centauri calling me on the radio! God's just testing my faith!! HA. HAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!")

      Evolution? That's NOTHING compared to ET landing on the White House lawn.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    57. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. Cain found a woman and had a child. Where did the woman come from unless it was Eve herself? After all, nowhere in the bible does it say God created anyone other than Adam and Eve.

      Some old rabbinical myths (Rabbinic Talmud )say Adam had another wife, Lilith, before Eve.

    58. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Any true American should care. After all, it is their children and grandchildren who many not receive a full education due to the religious beliefs of a small group of extremists. And in the world economy of today and most likely tomorrow, they will need to have such knowledge to just get by, let alone succeed.
      Perhaps I should have phrased my response as "why should we care, since their reaction doesn't change the facts?"

      As for "any true American" caring...I think your focus is far too narrow. If you fear that information about extraterrestrial life will be somehow censored by a bunch of religious extremists in this country, you should be absolutely petrified by the censorship that will take place in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

      For that matter, it may not only be the religious extremists to worry about. The folks on the other end of the political spectrum may feel that the common people may be too stupid or ignorant to properly deal with the weight of such an announcement. These self-appointed "custodians of the masses" may feel that some well-intentioned censorship will prevent riots, panic, and all-out chaos.

      Then again, maybe all this concern about extreme groups reacting is pointless. The truth, after all, will eventually become known. Furthermore, considering the immense distances between us and even the closest possible source of extraterrestrial life, there are no short- (or even medium-) term consequences of any possible (and as of yet, purely speculative) censorship.

    59. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is one of the people who >more bible.txt |grep "center of universe"
      and got no results.

    60. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tracts of land far greater than those on Earth, doing nothing, for noone - I.e., God creating in vain.

      Or they'll claim that god created all the planets for mankind, and then we'll end up with tons of un-progressive religious idiots who have colonized planets to spread their un-pragmatic ideology.

    61. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by iceperson · · Score: 1

      And how does it jive with an Athiests belief that life was formed from nothing if we never find proof of life anywhere else? Does that call into question your "theory" that life can just happen? Because if it's true then surely there is life out there somewhere and surely you could find it.

    62. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Pssst...none of that stuff is supposed to be taken literally.

      When you look deeper than the surface story, it's actually a fairly accurate description of the issues a species faces as it evolves the capacity for self-awareness.

      IMO, it was originally authored by one or more highly insightful bronze-age pundits, but of course it ended up being cast into a concrete story in a form that the masses could digest.

    63. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by iceperson · · Score: 1

      nowhere in the bible does it say God didn't create anyone other than Adam and Eve. it also never says that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's ONLY children.

    64. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, when you find something that funny, consider for a moment that it might have been a joke.

    65. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by iceperson · · Score: 1

      which half of "science" to we ridicule for the global cooling scare of the 70s?

    66. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Clod9 · · Score: 1
      The Bible already has a built-in clause that we fundies can use. John 10:16 -- "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold." There are many ideas on what this could mean -- non-Jews? people living on other continents at the time? extra-terrestrials?

      There is no Biblical requirement that earth is either the center of creation, or the sole location of living things. This is why, if they do find life on other planets, I'll be quite excited to learn more -- but it won't cause me to question what I already know about God's kingdom.

    67. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by iceperson · · Score: 1

      Powerful religious groups can often have a profound impact upon the development and progress of a nation. and powerful secular groups can not? i wonder, do you imply that religeon always has a negative impact on the progress or a nation? i think most of our founding fathers would disagree...

    68. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      As long as they don't terraform them first, it's a good idea. They can start with Venus.

    69. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      but it won't cause me to question what I already know about God's kingdom

      Right, because YOU KNOW NOTHING AT ALL about it. Not even if it exists. Remember, it's all about faith, not about knowledge

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    70. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      *raises eyebrow*
      *steps carefully away*
      *turns*
      *runs*

    71. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      it also never says that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's ONLY children.

      Considering that the bible then goes on to tediously list each and every offspring of various less important people, it would seem very strange to leave out additional children of Adam and Eve if they existed.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    72. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I have heard some say that the reason intelligent life on other planets is a problem for the Christian faith is Jesus and his act of taking away our sins. If there are other planets with intelligent life, then they would also need a savior to be relieved of their sin. And if there are many Jesus's that have died throughout the 'verse, then the act that Jesus gave his life for us is no longer a big deal, it has happened many times. And the one Jesus wouldn't really be able to die for more than this planet, since they would not have even known about him. Don't flame me, I didn't say I thought this way. Just thought is was an interesing counterpoint and was on topic to the discussion.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    73. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by kevinwal · · Score: 1

      They will say, "Yeah, but Jesus chose us."

    74. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... religion certainly seems to have had its negative impact on your spelling education. I think most of your founding fathers would agree...

    75. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      ...or "A Case of Conscience" by James Blish. It won the Hugo award. An even better read with regard to this subject. Catholic priest/scientist encounters "perfect" ET's and is slam-dunked by multiple religious issues.

      Check it out on amazon.com

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    76. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Are we forgetting that the bible claims our Earth is the center of the universe?

      Prove that it isn't.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    77. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      I doubt the religion you think of was practiced by the mostly Deist founding fathers.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    78. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Some old rabbinical myths (Rabbinic Talmud )say Adam had another wife, Lilith, before Eve.

      The way I heard it, Lilith was supposed to be Adam's wife, but one of them (I think Adam) rejected the idea. Lilith ended up marrying the Devil.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    79. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      surely... but only if we get a closeup image the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself

    80. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      Sweet! Even better is they have it at the local library;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    81. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by aevan · · Score: 1

      point of view of ..well..athiest? (i prefer apathist):

      Jesus died to redeem us from the original sin.

      Who says the other planets screwed up?

      Maybe the reason we don't get contact with other planets is god is doing a cover up since he doesn't want to admit he screwed up here, but is too kind to just obliterate us all. Stage one crucifixion PR move, then we're just buried in the arse-end of the galaxy and convienantly 'forgotten'. :D

    82. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by gilboooo · · Score: 1

      And if such aliens bring their own religion with them ? ;)

    83. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of puritanical laws on the books in American cities and states that prevent the exploration of Uranus.

    84. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      What a flamebait! Do you think ALL religious institutions will behave like THAT?

      The ones that dominate in this country, yes. I have history on my side to back up that prediction.

      (Christianity shrugs its shoulders in surprise and whines "Who, ME?! What are you looking at?! WHAT?! WHAT?!")

    85. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      First off, this it not funded yet. In fact, part of me would rather that we go back to getting our budget balanced, which will take some hard choices.

      Yes, like - should we continue corporate welfare, or fund medical achievment to improve the length and quality of human life? And should we continue funding a ridiculous "war" in multiple fronts at a billion dollars per day, or fund the greatest scientific explorations and discoveries (space) in the entirety of man's existance? Or... Should we continue to provide tax subsidies for people who squirt out children and get married, or fund scientific improvement across the board in American education.

      Yeah, those are just incredibly difficult decisions. They're not. It just takes someone with the balls to commit political suicide by telling senators that they dont' need to build $50million bridges between 100 person towns in the middle of nowhere and that they won't get the funding for that pork anymore.

    86. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by chihowa · · Score: 1
      ...and surely you could find it.

      therein lies your mistake

      the universe is a big and sparsely occupied place

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    87. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by robbak · · Score: 1

      In fact, it clearly states that Adam became father to sons and daughters. It then procedes to outline the family tree of Seth, who is the interesting one, because he was the ancestor of Noah, not that I want open _that_ can of worms!

      Yes, Cain married his sister or cousin. Abraham also maried his sister, by the way.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    88. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      PR nightmare ensues when aliens are found to be allergic to water.

      --
      I don't get it.
    89. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, one imagines the Mormons won't be fighting this... after all, their religious dogma actually affirms life on other worlds (God is said to live on the planet Kolob, for instance). NOT trolling, just pointing out that at least one well-known religion (if often ridiculed here and on fark.com - and note I said "well-known" and not "popular" and avoided "Christian" because some will argue Mormons are/are not Christians) has had "life exist on other planets" as a part of their dogma for over 150 years.

    90. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by The+Sigil · · Score: 1

      I don't think the grandparent was saying that the Founding Fathers practised a given religion. I think he was pointing out that obviously the Founding Fathers thought so highly of the good that could be accomplished by religion in general that they ensconced the right to practice religion in the same "breath" with such a fundamental right as the right to freedom of speech.

      They may not have subscribed to any religion in particular, but that it appears in the first amendment tells me they thought religion in general was not a negative thing.

    91. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      Precisely! Especially because at the time, the Earth was flat - as it exists in such a quantum state, that it was not round untill it was observed to be. Derr.

    92. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      The precedent of how the Roman Catholic Church accepted Galileo's findings will tell us a bit how religious authorities will react to the proof that life could exist on other planets.

      But I believe that most religious authorities already believe that life can exist on other planets. After all, the class the stars our Sun belongs to is among the most common type of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy (let alone all the galaxies out there!), and that could imply just within 150 light years of the Solar System we have planets circling nearby stars that could support various forms of life, even if the lifeforms aren't carbon-based.

    93. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by fandog · · Score: 1

      Sure, this is reconcilable; you just have to pick the right sets. The Set of God's children is the population of all your planets. Prophets on all planets are told of the great redeemer's sacrifice, (and it would probably be marked by some great sign on each). Jesus is killed on Earth, one planet in the set, which redeems the souls of all God's children, galaxy/universe wide, (ie: in the whole set). Location is taken out of the equation because someone in Thailand is as eligible for forgiveness as someone in Israel, right? So what difference would it make if they were on Mars, or a planet 50 l.y. away?

      Anyway, just following up your thought...

    94. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, you're close... To be correct, God is not said to live on Kolob. Kolob means "the first creation" and is the name of a star closest to the "residence of God." It is not God's actual residence. The scripture is when God is talking to Abraham, and it states:

      And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
      And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

      Anyway, just want to be accurate...

    95. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by fandog · · Score: 1

      If they don't die and there's a war we're in deep trouble. ;)

    96. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      though the first two lines of Genesis specifically state it was Earth that was created.

      Right, because when I write down; "First I wrote a Java 2D Program to play pong" I'm certainly implying that I've never before or since ever written any other Java program. Strictly speaking from a logical point of view, straight out saying, 'I built this' says nothing else about the state of anything except for the instance this.

      I know you're trolling, but lets keep it real anyway...

    97. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by fandog · · Score: 1

      Well, at first it seems that way, but since the 'begat' lines to show family lineage and not census data, the argument could be made that there were other A&E children. Wonder if even Cain would've showed up if he hadn't offed Abel...

      The point where I get some confusion is where suddenly Egypt is mentioned in chapter 12 verse 10 (KJV Translation)... seems weird that there's no mention at all of Egyptians or Egypt before this, and then suddenly say 'Abram went down to Egypt'.

    98. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by fandog · · Score: 1

      Whoops, thought it was implied but I guess I should've said 'in Genesis' chapter verse etc. etc.

    99. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by fandog · · Score: 1
      Well, it's like asking an Engineer if something's possible: "Of course it's possible... How much money do we have?" Most mechanical (ie: not necessarily medical or emotional) problems can be solved by throwing enough money and time at it, such as going to the moon, or building a tunnel from England to France, etc.

      It would just be an extremely expensive project, because you'd sit down with your Scientists and Engineers and say, "For this voyage to work, what do we have to invent?" Then get out the checkbook, because that bill's going to be a doozy by the time you get through blueprinting, prototyping, building, testing for each thing we'll need to fly there....

      I don't see the funding taking us there naturally for a very long time, in excess of 200 years at least; possibly never. Unless (of course) it looked like they have really good shopping malls there, or a lot of Gold to throw around, etc. ;)

    100. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you thought the coeliacs had trouble, wait and see what the catholics will do with these guys!

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    101. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Melllvar · · Score: 1

      I'll take your bet -- and I'm not even an atheist. Even if life is so ridiculously rare as to be evident in only one planet for each galaxy in the universe (with us representing the 100-billion-star Milky Way), that leaves something in the area of 100 billion galaxies scattered throughout the rest of Creation ... each with its own attendant life-filled planet.

      Life doesn't have to be easy to make for it to be all over the universe. Heck, it could be next to impossible to conjure up, and the odds are practically spot on that it'll still be there.

    102. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Melllvar · · Score: 1

      Well, at least now we know how the Space Pope wound up reptilian.

    103. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      >Powerful religious groups can often have a profound impact upon the development and progress of a nation.

      That's because no one EXPECTS the Spanish Inquisition!

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    104. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      Does that call into question your "theory" that life can just happen?

      What theory? Nowhere did I say life could just "happen." You ASSUME that I espouse that theory because of my statement that the hypothetical discovery of other and pre-existent intelligent life would shake our religions to the core. It is just simple truth that anything coming close to directly contradicting Man's central place in the Universe (and thus his status as the favorite creation of God) would not be welcomed by many religions. Evolution, anyone?

      If other older intelligent races are found, then that just means (assuming some variation of Creationism) that God created them before us. Existence of other intelligent races does not in and of itself prove anything, except that we are not alone, and that we do not have a God-given exclusive deed to the Universe.

      The God I believe in would not make this mighty Universe (home to more than 10 thousand billion billion stars) only to create one intelligent race. The discovery of other intelligences would serve to exalt His majesty, not diminish it.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    105. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      The next big epiphany that awaits us (maybe) is that we are not alone in the universe, and that we have to reconcile our planet's religions and stories of origin with this fact.

      Only the Judeo-Christian derived ones.

      Things like Hinduism and Buddhism already have world-views which will include this without any problems. As a matter of fact, I believe they already had analogs to most of modern physics.

      While it's true, these things would disrupt literalist/fundamentalist Christians, for a lot of people in the world, this is already the expected behaviour. And has been for a very long time.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    106. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      The way I heard it, Lilith was supposed to be Adam's wife, but one of them (I think Adam) rejected the idea. Lilith ended up marrying the Devil.

      Not necessarily. According to the Western tradition of Domus Occultae Abelis, Lilith mated with the 'sons of God', possibly fallen angels or other side-creations, and gave rise to the Lilim, who are here identified as demons. Her descendants are fated to play a major role after the Abandonment of Hell. The Domus Occultae also tells us of a third wife, who was wholly rejected by Adam and later destroyed by God.

      On the other hand, the Eastern or Shinseiki tradition has Lilith as the true founding mother of humanity; here we are the Lilim, with Eve (or Eva) yet to come. Once she is made from a human source (the rib thing is probably a metaphor for something weirdly evolutionary) we can expect her union with Adam to produce a new genesis and (depending on your intepretation) either transfigure or replace humanity.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    107. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What good is it fund going to the stars if we do not have the funds available?

      You mention the war. There are many who would pull out and leave a power vacuum. Yeah, it would save us a few bucks now, but how much would it cost us down the road. Here is a hint; Reagan is responsible for creating Al Qaeda by funding and training Middle Easterns to come to Afghanastan (Carter started the training, but only of afghanies). IOW, a short sighted choice by Reagan has had very long term repercussions.

      Now, Assume that baby bush pulls out of Iraq (more likely the dems), that will save. Of course, many will argue that we should not have invaded. Yeah, we should not. But, that was then, this is now. The current problem is that if we pull out now, Al Qaeda will come in. We saved a few bucks, but most of the middle eastern countries will fall to Al Qaeda, including Israel. How much fun will that be for future gens? IOW, we save a few bucks today, but we will have loads of costs in the future.

      Or how about the highway bill? It was created to fund the development of roads across America. That helped not only the military, but also our commerce. For the last 5 years, the feds have not funded them, and they are crumbling at fast rate. Now, the roads are inefficient due to how cars/trucks are built. So do we keep funding the highways, or do we consider the idea of building an energy efficient maglev cross country that can do 300MPH? Or do we consider some other idea such as allowing free enterprise to solve the issue? At any rate, that choice will have a very long-term implication.

      You mention the choice of Corporate Welfare vs. Medical Choices. Back in early 80's, I worked at CDC. In 1981-82 time frame, we approached Reagan to obtain funding for different group in CDC. All we asked was that millions be approved to hunt down these homosexuals (it was early 80s) that had a weird disease. Reagan decided that the millions was better spent elsewhere. But some of that money went into NASA, namely the NASP. My boss, one of the top researchers in the nation, actually flew to D.C. to talk to him. Later when my boss was asked to head AIDS research, he turned it down as being far to political. But the money that was saved could have been used on the National AeroSpace Plane. It failed. So we traded slowing an epidemic (even in '81, it was too late to stop it) vs. shooting for the stars. Had Reagan been right, then space would be a very low cost thing. In fact, Clinton tried all that with X-33.

      Now, with all that said, I am agree with what you said. But, I also think it a bit naive to assume that it simply takes balls. After all, those types of presidents are only in office for one terms. In my life time, the 2 presidents who had the balls to do what was right served only 1 term (IMHO, Carter and Poppa Bush did the right things for this nation and paid for it; Both were concerned about the inflation/deficts and did what was needed).

    108. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by raman3007 · · Score: 1

      I'm a Hindu and I can see your point.. just like you believe I can be 'saved' by submitting to Christ.. so can the creatures of other planets too..

    109. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by JunkMan1989 · · Score: 1

      Intelligent people of any faith (or not) will wonder and try to fit new knowledge into their world view. Close minded people of any faith (or not) will react with fear, skepticism, denial and blame. IF God exists (and the evidence I see supports that belief), his creativity and ability to manage the universe(s) will be little affected by what we (humans on the earth) do or do not believe. To me it seems irrational to believe in the creator of the earth and life upon it and then be unable to accept that he could do the same more than once. No wise scientist will affix himself upon a theory to the point that it (in his mind) cannot be altered by additional information and evidence. Likewise, no wise "religionist" will put himself in the position of believing that everything God has done or knows has been shared with us, nor that what has been shared has been explained to us any better than we are capable of accepting or understanding. Just as scientists wish to be accorded the opportunity to revise theories and explanations, religionists should be willing to reinterpret and revise their understandings in the light of additional truth, even if it comes from a scientist.

    110. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by DasBub · · Score: 1

      I, for one, will put up with aliens in suits knocking on my door every Saturday morning in lieu of them converting me into food.

    111. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Clod9 · · Score: 1
      Put it this way: if Jesus wasn't who he said he was, I got nothing. But if he was, then I know plenty -- because he told us lots of things about his kingdom. I have evidence for the existence of this kingdom, evidence that is convincing to me. My faith in God's power (and its visible effects) is just as strong as my faith in my car engine's power (and its visible effects). I "know" that my car will move when I press the gas pedal, and I "know" that Gods's plans and promises written in the Bible are true and do actually work out in the real world.

      Obviously nothing I might say will convince you. So we are both being consistent. To the same extent that you "know" what you know, I "know" what I know. Unless, of course, you're some sort of super-human that works on a different plane of existence, and your ability to "know" is different from mine. Maybe you are god?

    112. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      But if he was, then I know plenty -- because he told us lots of things about his kingdom (...) I "know" that Gods's plans and promises written in the Bible are true

      Even if the God entity Jesus talked about exists, and even if he/she/it in some way made Jesus walk the earth, etc., I'd say you still know nothing: because you only know what the Bible says, the content of which
      (i) was written down several decades after the events took place
      (ii) as a book was a rather arbitrary collection of the accounts that had been given, with the selection being based on mostly political decisions, and thus several important works being excluded
      (iii) has been translated numerous times so that today no two translations seem to agree on important parts (even the 2 big German translations [protestant and catholic], which are the most familiar to me, differ in major aspects)
      (iv) underwent 2000 years of being copied, being interpred, texts being included and excluded.

      Having seen how eye witness accounts of a simple car accident differ after mere minutes, please excuse if I find the Bible a highly interesting book that was extremely important to how the world developed, and which contains many ideas that I personally consider "good" (and others I consider "evil"), but in now way would I think it contains "the word of God", even if it had contained it in the beginning, which I find highly inprobable in the first place.

      Some (like the so-called "President" Bush) claim to know more about God's will than I do, because God seems to talk to them. Excuse me if I will get me a gun if they try to enforce this on me.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    113. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps they would simply look at life on other planets as the ultimate proof of God's existance and creation. I mean, maybe statistically life could evolve in one place in our entire universe (I'm not saying that it did - just that some people believe it did), but two? three? ten? The chances of that must be virtually nill.

  9. They could have chosen a better Acronym by ZP-Blight · · Score: 2, Funny

    NWO? Really?

    --
    Zoom Player Lead Dev.
    1. Re:They could have chosen a better Acronym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I guess they thought anyone that would be offended by the acronym would already be at least suspicious of their motives because they are a government-funded project. In other words, it wasn't worth it to care.

    2. Re:They could have chosen a better Acronym by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They wanted to call it TWA (Telescope With Attitude), but unfortunately that acronym was already taken.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. No Google Reference - Can't Be True by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly we are unable to function without Their Googly Appendages, so I don't know how NASA is going to pull this off. Although a soccer-field-sized Space Daisy observatory does sound like something eBay would acquire, and that might get Google interested in a competing Cricket-Pitch Space Tulip.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. And in other news by Daysaway · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google plans to unveil their new software aptly named 'Google Solar System', which sews the surface maps of the planets together for an interactive flythrough.

    --
    Colonel Cranium this is Rectal Reconnaissance, we are on a collision course sir, Abort Abort!
  12. As I'm sure they will find out by suso · · Score: 0, Redundant

    it can also detect planetary features like large pockets of hydrogen, methane and nitrogen gas, rings, color bands and thick soupy atmospheres. ;-) Sorry, but I think we're too far away to see anything earth size for now. Maybe in 10-20 years we'll have the technology down.

    1. Re:As I'm sure they will find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm certainly glad you cleared that up before anyone bothered studying it. Dipshit.

  13. But wait, there's more! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

    > it could 'identify planetary features like oceans,
    > continents, polar caps and cloud banks, and even
    > detect biomarkers like methane

    The bad part will come with version 3.0, launched in the later part of this century, when we zoom on on their alien babes on beaches, and see if they have silly laws regulating nudity, too. Or churches.

    Quite frankly, I'd be way more scared if they had churches than if they did not.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:But wait, there's more! by maynard · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you even want to see this thing in a bikini?!?!? Best the aliens be covered, if you ask me...

    2. Re:But wait, there's more! by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can see it now. The guy scientists gathering around the screen, then suddenly "Eeww, Gross! What's that?" "I don't know. Is it normal?" "Sadly, I wouldn't know"

    3. Re:But wait, there's more! by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

      Churches (ie religion) predictates war, doesn't it? :-/

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
  14. Phew. by mctk · · Score: 3, Funny
    Soccer field sized cameras, tiny robots for planetary surface investigation, an infrared observatory on the moon, giant, laser-trapped mirrors in space...

    Having recently watched Independence Day, I can say that I'm relieved that NASA is finally getting around to that RFDEW (Really F#*king Distant Early Warnings) system I've been proposing for years.

    --
    Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  15. Steerable? by david.given · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This thing appears to be a giant pinhole camera; there's a pinhole, which can be considered the lens assembly, which focuses light onto the sensor, 50'000km behind.

    Very cool. However, there's one little problem --- how the hell do you turn it? If the sensor's got to be 50'000km away from the lens, then to turn it 90 degrees (why does Slashdot block Unicode?) you're going to have to move the sensor some 70'000km, which means a lot of hydrazine.

    Or do they have something more cunning up their sleeves?

    1. Re:Steerable? by theycallmeB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I (without RTFA) would suppose that the sensor would be in very nearly the same sun-orbiting track as the pinhole assembly to maintain the correct focal length. Thus, to turn the camera by 90 degrees in the plane of the orbit, you just have to wait for 1/4th or 3/4th (depending which way you wanted to turn) of the orbital period to transpire (3 or 9 months in an Earth-trailing orbit). If you want to turn it more than a few degrees (or even a few arc-minutess) out of plane, things would get complicated and expensive, but if you can get the orbital plane of the camera more-or-less aligned with the plane of the galaxy, it shouldn't be that great of a limitation.

    2. Re:Steerable? by halftrack · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the pinhole part has a mirror, the disk with the pinhole would be able to spin around a central axis (obviously it need some counterweight.) And inside this central axis there is are huge arrays of mirrors (the mirror surface needs to be as large as the pinhole) that can be used to aim the light at the trailing craft.

      (And no, this is slashdot, so I didn't read the article either.)

      --
      Look a monkey!
    3. Re:Steerable? by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      which means a lot of hydrazine

      Only if you need to go fast. If, instead, you go slowly then it's not a problem. 70,000km at 10km/h is about 291 days. Presumably once a general alignment is achieved many systems can be analyzed with only small changes.

      Hydrazine isn't the only available means of propulsion. This looks like a great application for an ion drive. The small thrust and easily controlled throttle would make frequent, precise alignment maneuvers easier than it might be with traditional thrusters. Ion drives also have an order of magnitude greater fuel efficiency.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    4. Re:Steerable? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Very cool. However, there's one little problem --- how the hell do you turn it? If the sensor's got to be 50'000km away from the lens, then to turn it 90 degrees (why does Slashdot block Unicode?) you're going to have to move the sensor some 70'000km, which means a lot of hydrazine.
      Not true at all.

      Imagine a sunshade that's in Earth's orbit (not in orbit around Earth, but in the same orbit) with the sensor craft coorbital but trailing. In the course of a year, your field of view will traverse 360 degrees without ever once manuvering either craft.

      In practice, they plan to have the two craft in seperate orbits around L2 - as described in this PDF, but the basic principle is as described above.

    5. Re:Steerable? by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However, there's one little problem --- how the hell do you turn it?

      This is listed as a "problem" by the folks developing it.

      Actually, however, there's a much bigger problem. Presuming that you have the sensor facing away from the sun (if you don't, then you face even bigger issues), then the 50k km spacing leads to the two objects being in separate orbits. The sensor will travel around the sun at a slightly faster rate than the shield, which means you have to adjust orbits on a pretty frequent basis. This becomes less and less of a problem the further away from the sun you are (and being further away has its own advantages too), but it's still an issue no matter what.

      Keeping the entire thing in alignment is a huge problem -- even if you ignore needing to turn it (which you certainly will; it may be a pinhole camera, but the longer the exposure time the better the picture -- if you can pivot the entire thing continuously that is).

  16. Reminded me of Star Trek - I am Nomad by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    "Using photometry and spectroscopy, we could identify planetary features like oceans, continents, polar caps and cloud banks, and even detect biomarkers like methane, water, oxygen and ozone," said Cash.

    This reminded me of Star Trek, Ep. 37 'The Changeling'

    Nomad was sent out by Earth "in the early 2000s" according to Kirk on a mission to scout for life. Nomad collided with a meteor and was damaged and had lost a good portion of its memory until it encountered another probe, this one alien, with equally advanced artificial intelligence. The alien probe, which had the mission of sterilizing imperfections in soil for colonization purposes, merged with Nomad to repair one another. The convoluted mixup made Nomad think his duty was to sterlize anything that isn't perfect. This is what happened to the poor Malurians - they were killed because they were imperfect.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6300 213412/102-1365682-2218526?v=glance

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Reminded me of Star Trek - I am Nomad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. Did you really think you needed to summarize the episode?

    2. Re:Reminded me of Star Trek - I am Nomad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kissed a girl once.

  17. biomarkers by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and even detect biomarkers like methane, water, oxygen and ozone

    I hope I live to see the day when this thing detects a faint glow on the planet's continents that are facing away from the planet's sun at that moment. *shudder*

    1. Re:biomarkers by Robotdog · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's just swamp gas reflected off of Venus.

    2. Re:biomarkers by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      when this thing detects a faint glow on the planet's continents that are facing away from the planet's sun

      You mean evidence of intelligent life? Cuz volcanoes can cause the same thing.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    3. Re:biomarkers by 2008 · · Score: 1

      Shudder?

      Anyway, excess heat could be volcanic (either from a hot core or tidal forces), and probably lots of other things (Chemical reactions? Weather processes?). I know Jupiter gives off heat because it's slowly contracting.

      --
      I quit!
    4. Re:biomarkers by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Go ahead, burst my bubble.

      As I was typing that, I was thinking that it might also be some kind of biolumenescent plant life.

    5. Re:biomarkers by starman97 · · Score: 1

      And what if there is a strong spectral line corresponding to the light given off by say.. ionized mercury or sodium?

      Natural light is going to be basically blackbody radiation coressponding to the temperature of the luminous object.

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
  18. Accuracy a problem? by ericfnj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    During the recent comet impactor mission, the accuracy needed to strike the probe onto the comet seemed to be at the limit of our abilities.

    Can we really move a pinhole shaped opening directly in front of the target at 50,000km?

    1. Re:Accuracy a problem? by DasBub · · Score: 1

      This should actually be a far easier problem to solve. Sending a probe after a comet millions upon millions of miles away comes down to one basic problem: getting them to exist within a certain box of space at the same time. To accomplish this, you need to physically move the entire probe to that box. You won't be able to accomplish that with a single engine burn; you'll require multiple course corrections en route because the greater the distance your probe is from the target, the more imprecise the final destination from a single engine burn.

      The elements at play here are how well you can maintain the oritentation of the probe while firing the engine, and to what degree the thrust vector lines up with the probe's center of mass.

      With the planet imaging system your only concerns are having the two satellites facing each other and maintaining that orientation. For this sort of precision, you wouldn't use maneuvering thrusters, just a series of wheels that can be spun at very precise speeds. Each satellite would also need to display a series of targets at various places on their hulls and use a precise system to determine the ranges and velocities of each target, feed it all in the computer, and use the reaction wheels to change the satellite's orientation.

      Once the initial distance and orientation is achieved, any changes in distance or orientation would only require very small corrections.

      Although the US military did have some sort of difficulty setting up a laser communications system between an earlier series of spy satellites... Back in the 70s or early 80s, I believe. For some reason they had trouble finding each other and keeping their gazes locked. I'm sure it's all been fixed in the past 20-30 years :)

  19. Minor correction by MoxCamel · · Score: 0, Redundant
    ...a proposal by the University of Colorado (UC) at Boulder to image distant planets around other stars for a second round of funding. Known as the New Worlds Observer, the UC project is...

    The University of Colorado goes by CU, not UC. The Boulder campus goes simply by CU Boulder. (yeah well, it's a slow news day for me too...)

    Mox

  20. So the images would go into... by awol · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google "Not" Earth then.... Or maybe GoogleGalaxy.

    --
    "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
  21. Wow, thanks for that well thought-out analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "I may not have 'facts' or 'numbers' or a fancy 'basic understanding of the concepts', but I don't think we can do that."

    Seriously, why did you even bother typing?

  22. Blind Lake? by Mantrid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heh kind of reminds me of the book titled "Blind Lake" (sorry can't remember the author) Basically they had a super telescope getting more and more detail, hooking it up super computers for further analysis of the data, and more and more data starts pouring in from the computers in greater and greater detail...even after the original telescopes stop working!

    1. Re:Blind Lake? by mikael · · Score: 1

      That would be "Blind Lake" by Robert Charles Wilson

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  23. im just waiting by gooberguy25 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    im just waiting for: alienvideo.google.com "Video Chat with your new Alien Friends!"

  24. More info by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The NAIC website has a smidgen more info on it -- namely that there were four other research projects funded as well.

    There's a PDF on this project that may contain more info, but my copy of Acrobat (6.0) declines to render the entire thing (or the PDF is junk, dunno which).

    There's also an article on Astrobio.net that gives little more detail than the CU link... but it does have links to other sources that may be informative. Really though, this concept seems to be in such an infancy stage that "simple" questions like "so how do you turn it?" haven't been answered yet (in fact, in this NASA link how to keep the two craft in alignment is listed as a "main technological hurdle").

  25. Imagine the possibilities! by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    With technology like this, we could even determine if the inhabitants of distant planets are so mindbogglingly primitive that they're still driving SUVs!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Imagine the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if they still think that digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

  26. Great.... by zimus · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... an orbiting, soccer-field sized "starshade" shaped like a daisy ...

    Let's just clue the entire galaxy in to the fact that so many hippies live here.

    --
    Is your terror cell living in terror? Is your safe-house not so safe? If so, read the New York Times, the jihad journal.
  27. Forget Religion...What about the Realtors ? by sycodon · · Score: 1

    How will the real estate market react?

    When can we condemn the beach front property for commercial development?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  28. Here by marcantonio · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not the best picture but you get the idea... http://www.physorg.com/news7177.html

  29. You must be new here by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    All except for perhaps Scientology. They are the most open to honest scientific inquiry.

    Where "here" = among the living on planet Earth, if you actually think Scientologists welcome scientists nosing into their racket.

  30. center of the universe? by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1
    Are we forgetting that the bible claims our Earth is the center of the universe?
    I must have overlooked that verse. Please enlighten me.
    1. Re:center of the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think it's in either I or II Opinions. I'm not sure which.

    2. Re:center of the universe? by Locke2005 · · Score: 0
      I'm sorry, you must be correct. Galileo was put under arrest for heresy for espousing views that conflict with nothing that the bible says. Thanks for clearing that one up!

      If I remember Genesis correctly, it states that Earth was created first, the sun and stars several days later. Genesis, 1:16-17, says that the "sun, moon, and stars also" were created "to light the earth." NOT to light other planets!

      Now please point out to be the verse in the bible that states that I should have only a single wife!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:center of the universe? by OMRebel · · Score: 1

      The sun and moon and stars do provide light to the Earth. That doesn't mean that the Earth is the center of the universe. Sorry, but your post still doesn't support the "center of the universe" comment.

    4. Re:center of the universe? by wrightam · · Score: 1

      1 Timothy 3:1-3 1 Timothy 3:11-13 Titus 1:6 Now granted, these each refer to leadership of the church, but the idea, which is explained in 1 Timothy 3 is that the leadership of the church should be model christians. That means that the model christian should only have one wife. Of course, if you are not a christian, then the verses above do not apply to you (God may still want you to have only one wife, but you don't beleave in God, or atleast the christian laws, so what do you care?). In that case, it is not the bible, but the law, that states you should have only one wife. If you still have a problem, contact your senator...

    5. Re:center of the universe? by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, you must be correct. Galileo was put under arrest for heresy for espousing views that conflict with nothing that the bible says. Thanks for clearing that one up!
      Not everything done in the name of religion is actually in accordance with the teachings of that religion. Galileo's ideas conflicted with an (at the time) commonly accepted interpretation of the Bible, not the actual content of the Bible. Jesus was arrested as a heretic as well for similar reasons.
      Now please point out to be the verse in the bible that states that I should have only a single wife!
      I don't believe polygamy is anywhere specifically endorsed or condemned (I could be wrong), however there are numerous instances in the old testament where having more than one wife caused a great deal of conflict, and for that reason one could reasonably conclude that it's a bad idea.
    6. Re:center of the universe? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      First I learned from personal experience that having only one wife also can create a great deal of conflict, and from that I concluded that one should have none at all. However, then I found out that having no wife at all also creates a great deal of conflict. Please advise on how to proceed ;)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    7. Re:center of the universe? by svkal · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, you must be correct. Galileo was put under arrest for heresy for espousing views that conflict with nothing that the bible says. Thanks for clearing that one up!


      I get the impression that you are trying to be sarcastic, but the statement you make above is - as far as I know - factually correct. Galileo Galilei was accused of heresy on account of contradicting the geocentric worldview that the Catholic church held at the time. This worldview, appropriately known as the Ptolemaic system, originated not with the Bible, but with the astronomer Ptolemy. (As I skimmed through the article I linked I noticed that it seems Catholic dogma was actually a variant of the Ptolemaic system, including a bit of Plato as well, either way, it's not from nor in the Bible.)

      Catholic doctrine holds tradition in high regard, because it sees the Church as an organisation as divine(please bear with me with regards to the terminology, Catholic theology seems to be frightfully complex, so this quick description is most likely wrong). In other words; things that never were in the Bible have, on occasion, been quite openly admitted into the Catholic faith system. (If this seems outrageous to you, remember that this same organisation chose what texts were to go into what we today know as "the" Bible in the first place.)

      However, Catholic beliefs change over time(albeit slowly and (formally) through obscure and bureaucratic means), and other Christians don't acknowledge Catholic beliefs at all. You would be very hard pressed to find a Christian of any denomination who has a geocentric worldview - or feels that the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth in itself challenges his or her religious beliefs - still alive today.

      So, do you know something I don't, or might you have been speaking a tad too hastily?

      Furthermore, with regards to your second comment; the Bible is quite obviously an Earth-centric book, written for humans about things that are relevant and understandable to them. That it describes the stars(and largely, the entire universe) as the framework supporting the Earth is unsurprising - the rest of the universe seen out of context would have been utterly meaningless to the people who were actually alive at the time that the book was written.

      Atheists who try to "disprove religion" by finding scientific faults with the Bible are, in my humble opinion, missing the point of religion. The Bible is not a science textbook. (Yes, obviously creationists and fundamentalists ought to take this to heart as well.)

      (By the way, lest I should be accused of religious bias: I'm an agnostic, I still find "militant atheism" silly and needlessly hostile.)
    8. Re:center of the universe? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
      Thank you for your polite reply. Yes, I did speak to hastily -- I can find nothing in the bible that directly states the earth is the center of the universe. Historically people have interpreted the bible to imply that the earth was the center of the universe, or at least that the sun revolved around the earth, but that was because historically people have had an extremely self-centric view of the universe.

      There is much wisdom to be found in the Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud. Unfortunately, leaders have always twisted the words of the prophets, misinterpreted scripture, suppressed gospels that didn't fit their world view, even rewritten the "words of god" to suit their own purposes. Yes, we would all be much better off if people read and tried to understand these books on their own, instead of letting "leaders" with their own agenda explain the books to them. For example, from Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, we can only conclude that either Pat Robertson has never actually read the bible, or that his reading comprehension is so poor that he has completely misunderstood the book. And please, don't even get me started on the Catholic Church's selective interpretation of the bible.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re:center of the universe? by fandog · · Score: 1

      First I learned from personal experience that having only one wife also can create a great deal of conflict, and from that I concluded that one should have none at all. However, then I found out that having no wife at all also creates a great deal of conflict. Please advise on how to proceed ;)

      Hmmm... given the situation it sounds like you need -1 Wife. (Wonder how that would work)

    10. Re:center of the universe? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Especially when the wives were sisters. Yeeeesh! *shudder*

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:center of the universe? by raman3007 · · Score: 1

      The whole problem starts with the Bible trying to pin down the physical nature of the universe along with the 'be kind to thy neighbor' message. If they stuck with the message rather than a whole bunch of baloney (isn't it true that the Bible says that the Earth is 6000 years old), religion and science would have probably never clashed, and mankind would have been way way ahead of what it is know in terms of science and technology. Like it or not we owe a lot to 'militant atheism' for the progress we have made today, for the church would have happily preferred to keep mankind in the dark ages..

    12. Re:center of the universe? by svkal · · Score: 1

      While I can't recall how exactly that 6,000 years figure came about(I've believe also heard 4,000 years from a Jehovah's Witness or similar), I feel confident it stems from what most Christians would consider to be a ridiculously literal interpretation of the Bible. (Such an interpretation of the Bible is popular among certain fundamentalist Christians, today perhaps most prominently in America.)

      Wikipedia seems to assert that the Young Earth creationists - that I assume you are referring to - base their beliefs on the genealogies found in Genesis(and thus on the literal truth of creation with no element of analogy, which is surely not a requirement for all Christian faith). I've also heard another fundamentalist "Young Earth" theory which argues that the seven first days of creation directly correspond to periods of time in the literal creation of the Earth. Now, science can(and should - simple defense of scientific principles is not what I've dubbed "militant atheism") show that these theories are internally inconsistent, and very probably fundamentally false. But for the vast majority of Christians, that won't matter: the core of their faith is what you so eloquently summed up as the 'be kind to thy neighbor' message(which you'll have to admit might be a bit more complex than that). In other words: it's not at all uncontroversial that "the Bible says" this or that about scientific matters, even in cases where the actual text is less ambigous than in this case - because many Christians would argue that it's not meant to say anything about scientific matters. (Likewise, few Christians would argue that ancient laws not explicitly stated as such are somehow made divine by their description in the Bible.)

      The essence being that for most Christians - at least the ones I've met - the "whole bunch of baloney" that is being used to ridicule their religion does not apply to their actual religion. Interestingly, the class of atheists I'm describing(the "militant" ones) tend to read the Bible in much the same way as some fundamentalist Christians would - as literal as possible, whether the results make sense or not.

      The kind of "militant atheism" I describe isn't something I associate with scientific achievement, but purely with seemingly intentional theological ignorance. The Enlightenment was not brought about by "militant atheism"(the concept was hardly relevant at the time), but largely by Christians, deists, and some atheists - probably not "militant" ones in the sense that they didn't choose to ignore how people actually practiced religion when they criticised it. (Furthermore, I won't deny that proclaiming yourself a "militant atheist" would be, er, strategically unwise during the Dark Ages. But from this it logically follows that the renaissance was not, as you seem to imply, brought about by a horde of scientific atheists emerging from an intellectual and religious vacuum to save the world from the Church.)

      As an example: Did Isaac Newton "happily prefer to keep mankind in the dark ages"? No, he did not. Was he a Christian? Yes, very much so. Your last sentence smacks of creative historical revisionism.

      (Please note that I'm not saying that we should shy away from telling religious people that they're likely to be wrong if they hold views that encroach on well-known scientific ground and directly oppose the scientific explanations. Specifically, opposing creationism and similar fundamentalist pseudoscience is not "militant atheism". I'm just saying that if you wish to debate Christian theology or the history of the various Christian churches, you need to have some grasp of what you are trying to analyse before you start your critique.)

  31. Let me guess by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    You went to either CU or CSU?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  32. You guessed right... by kakos · · Score: 1

    Considering that he quoted CU's fight song, I would say it's probably fairly likely that he went to CU.

  33. Interest by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
    ... the current administration has overspent so fucking much in the last half-decade that ... you'll be paying interest out the asshole for decades."

    And guess who those interest payments are going to? (Hint #1: Not you. Hint #2: Nobody you know. Hint #3: I wonder how China paid for its new space program...)

  34. Why not? That would be useful. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It would be cool if they did that using maps.google.com for all the planets that we have mapped. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and all the moons with each. It would be useful for kids to be able see that. Imagine zooming down to Mars from a POV of MGS, or perhaps images from one of the lunar mappers.

    Something like that combined with www.nineplanets.org, would be inspirational.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  35. Since you're probably thinking about Creationism by benhocking · · Score: 1

    I don't see how this is very different from discovering that some stars are significantly more than 6,000 light years from here.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  36. Just guessing here... by DisownedSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's probably shaped that way because to get it into space you have to fold it up into a shape that will fit into a launch vehicle fairing. A BIG fairing only gives you about a 5 meter diameter, so a lot of folding is required. Some kind of unfolding truss would make sense to me.

    --

    "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

  37. long way between "study" and "launch" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Whats percentage of these concept studies actually become vehicles and are launched? I'd guess it is a single-digit percentage. There are lots of nifty ideas out there compared to what NASA is able to implement.

    1. Re:long way between "study" and "launch" by DisownedSky · · Score: 1

      I don't have any stats to offer, but your estimate seems to me to be about right - probably well less than one in 10 ever cuts metal.

      --

      "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

  38. My Bad. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I went to CSU, so I never pay attention to CU. I should have thought about that.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  39. Budgets by DisownedSky · · Score: 1

    The NASA budget is such a small sliver of federal spending that even if you zeroed it it would have little overall effect.

    Projects like this compete with similar projects for funds, not with porkbarrel road projects of Iraq reconstruction.

    --

    "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

    1. Re:Budgets by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of NASA. Some of my code controls the MGS camera (at least it did).

      The problem is that we are going to have to make budgetary choices again. Poppa Bush and Clinton did that to balance the budget that Reagan ran up. Now, GWB has made Reagan look positively responsible. No doubt that the next admin will have to raise taxes, but they will also have to cut spending. And since we have only made ourselves more dependent on Middle east oil and Chinese products, we will have to cut huge. problem is, where?

      The Iraqi Invasion has meant that the Army is unable to recruit. We will have to offer larger and larger incentives to get good recruits (ppl do not like being cannon fodder). This invasion will costs more than .5 trillion before GWB is out of office. Likewise, we still have not captured OBL or even slowed down Al Qaida. In fact, Iraq has made it much easier for them (simply read the parts of the letter that GWB was willing to share). So all in all, we can not cut the military.

      Shortly after GWB is gone, his senior drug plan really kicks in. It is one of the worst plans going and yet, I doubt that the dems will have the spine to stop it.

      Currently, we have NOLA issues which is going to cost 10's of billions.

      The highway bill that was passed will almost certainly have to be recended and the next admin will almost certainly try to roll back much of the energy bill that GWB has passed.

      Finally, we will have no choice, but to undertake a crash program in moving to Nukes. Big mistake, though. Something like that, is better being done slowly. This should be done, but it should be done at a measured pace. The problem is that we have expensive labor. Therefor, we require energy to automate the manufacturing. In addition, since we have one of the lowest population densities, we require more energy just to get around. Finally, we will need to clean up our act. We can not remain the number one polluters and not suffer from it. All of this means that we MUST get off oil. And GWB is trying hard to keep us on it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Budgets by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

      ...Poppa Bush...

      I like it! If Haiti can have "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc", then why not us??

      ALL HAIL OUR LEADER, BABY BUSH!

  40. It's really a weapon by sytos · · Score: 3, Funny

    What they don't tell you is that it can focus sunlight into a tiny dot. Ah, the smell of burning aliens!

  41. No hurry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the precursor missions for this, TPF-I and TPF-C, just took huge budget hits, and will not be launching anytime soon ("soon" was already 2015).

  42. Re:Steerable? Ion Drive Capp'n. by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    Use a nuclear ion drive system.

  43. Daisy, Daisy by irablum · · Score: 0

    Daisy, Daisy,
    Give me your answer do!
    I'm half crazy,
    All for the love of you!

    - Hal

  44. Other planets? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    You know that they are just going to use it to peek at sunbathers. They just "say" that it's to see other planets.

    It's full of Perverts!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  45. Somebody tell .. by 32771 · · Score: 1

    the guys in Colorado that to be Hippies in space they don't need to actually get there physically. A flower in space is a nice touch though.

    --
    Je me souviens.
  46. Macroscope, by Piers Anthony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sci-fi about implications of "telescopes" that can receive all information from all sides with "infinite" zooming.

    Much of it is a flight of fancy, but still not too bad a read.

    1. Re:Macroscope, by Piers Anthony by DasBub · · Score: 1

      Piers Anthony. 'nuff said.

  47. Imaging is the Hard Part by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Detection biomarkers like methane is pretty easy if you can isolate the light from the planet and can get a decent number of photons. (Either through a large collection area or long integrations.) You just look for the distinctive spectral bands for the molecules like methane or ozone. (Oxygen, alas, leaves little mark in the spectrum since it's a homonuclear diatomic molecule and light tends to ignore it.)

    Imaging the surfaces will be tougher. You'll need a damn wide apeture (long integration don't help and the resolving power goes linearly with apeture). Remember, we've only imaged a few stars so far, and most of those are larger (in angular size) than these planets. Crud, look at Cassini: we're only getting good images of moons in our own solar system now because we have a spacecraft flying close to them.

    1. Re:Imaging is the Hard Part by fandog · · Score: 1
      Plus, if we're imaging a planet that's 10 ly away, then aren't we seeing what it looked like 10 years ago? (or 50 or 100?) To sensitive instruments I can imagine Earth looking very different from 100 ly away than it does from LEO. :)

      So the goofy part is, say you get a 'scope that can see individual cities on a planet 20ly away... you build a faster-than-light craft and go there, (I know, just stay with me here), and arrive only to find that all the residents wiped themselves out a decade and a half ago- All cities are grey craters. Still looks good in the telescope though!!

      Weird, looking back through history...

    2. Re:Imaging is the Hard Part by Xilman · · Score: 1
      Oxygen, alas, leaves little mark in the spectrum since it's a homonuclear diatomic molecule and light tends to ignore it.

      Well, yes and no. I was a molecular spectroscopist in an earlier life and found that the spectrum of O_2 was actually quite easy to detect in the deep red and near infrared though, to be fair, I had plenty of light available and was looking through several metres of O_2 at around 20% of an atmosphere partial pressure. The O_2 was a pain --- I was actually interested in the spectrum of gaseous CeO (cerium monoxide).

      O_2 is indeed a homonuclear diatomic molecule, but a rather unusual one. It has a strong magnetic dipole transition in the near IR (high-lying vibrational levels creep into the deep red, as already mentioned). It's this transition which gives LOX its pretty pale blue colour.

      I could go into much more detail but anyone interested will find at least as much information as they want by searching the regular places for stuff on molecular spectrosocopy.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    3. Re:Imaging is the Hard Part by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Yes, molecular oxygen does leave a mark in the solar spectrum as measured on Earth's surface, in fact. But that's because there is a LOT of oxygen lying between us and space. In lower concentrations, it becomes pretty dicey. Ozone, however, gives a nice, strong absorption and gives away the presence of O_2. So it has always been considered a preferable way to seeking out atmospheric oxygen.

    4. Re:Imaging is the Hard Part by Xilman · · Score: 1
      Yes, molecular oxygen does leave a mark in the solar spectrum as measured on Earth's surface, in fact. But that's because there is a LOT of oxygen lying between us and space. In lower concentrations, it becomes pretty dicey. Ozone, however, gives a nice, strong absorption and gives away the presence of O_2. So it has always been considered a preferable way to seeking out atmospheric oxygen.

      I think we're in violent agreement. I claimed it is easy to see the O_2 absorption spectrum with a path length of around one atmosphere-meter; you that a couple of atmosphere-kilometres is sufficient

      My point should be read in the article's context of characterizing extrasolar planetary atmospheres. It's a fair bet that if an ecosystem uses an oxygen ecomony like ours (catalytic photolysis of water and oxidation with free oxygen to complete the cycle) such a planet would also have a moderately high concentration of free O_2 and path lengths of a few kilometres should be available for light reflected from the planetary surface.

      I don't doubt that O_3 is easier to detect in the near UV than O_2 is in the near-IR, but if spectroscopy of starlight reflected from an extrasolar terrestial planet is going to be done at all, it is likely to be possible to detect numerous molecules, including O_2, H_20, CO_2, N_H3 and CH_4 --- all in the appropriate regions of the EM-spectrum of course! Picking up other atmospheric species, such as N_2 and Ar, is likely to be rather difficult though their presence may perhaps be inferred from other properties of the atmosphere.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    5. Re:Imaging is the Hard Part by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not even violent about the agreement. I was just clarifying. Although I'm not sure if we want to make the assumption that there is as much O_2 in the exoplanet atmospheres as we have on Earth. I'm sure if they find the O_2 bands, the astronomers will be thrilled. But they'll start by looking for ozone for the reasons I've mentioned.

  48. Wrong Abbreviation by milesbparty · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The abbreviation for the University of Colorado Boulder is CU not UC.

    --
    eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
    1. Re:Wrong Abbreviation by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Being a CU Alum, I'd mod you up if I had any points.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    2. Re:Wrong Abbreviation by milesbparty · · Score: 1

      Redundant? What idiot moderated this?

      --
      eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
  49. Prove that Earth isn't the centre of the universe? by tzot · · Score: 1

    In an infinite (bounded or unbounded), any point can be considered its centre --is that what you implied? (I got the joke, I'm just not sure I remember the logic correctly)

    --
    I speak England very best
  50. Re:Why not? That would be useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because nobody has ever thought of doing that before.

  51. Re:Prove that Earth isn't the centre of the univer by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Partly. Even if the universe is bounded, there's no way to tell where the center is, so claiming the Earth is the center is as good as answer as any other.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  52. Now, Ozone... by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

    Now, ozone... that would be a marker for, what... grow-ops?

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
  53. CyricZ Exposed by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
    "Go through CyricZ's post history. You'll find it chock full of vague refernces to things that he has absolutely no idea about. Yet 9 times out of 10 it gets modded insightful. He takes a holier-than-thou approach despite the fact that he truly hasn't a clue."
    I'm with you, dude... I've found myself becoming increasingly annoyed by his holier-than-thou attitude, but I do suspect that he's nothing but a troll. After all, he frequently misrepresents people's opinions and pretends in his replies that people who strongly disagree with his nonsense actually agreed.

    I'll probably take a hit for this too, but people really need to stop modding the clueless troll CyricZ up!

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
    1. Re:CyricZ Exposed by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1
      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:CyricZ Exposed by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Priceless :)

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    3. Re:CyricZ Exposed by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm basically always correct. That's just how it works. I sense some jealousy from you, but that's okay. I won't hold it against you.

      My good man, you have yourself a nice day!

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.