White House Briefed On "Potential For Life" On Mars

Veeoh writes "FTA: It would appear that the US President has been briefed by Phoenix scientists about the discovery of something more 'provocative' than the discovery of water existing on the Martian surface. This news comes just as the Thermal and Evolved Gas Analyzer (TEGA) confirmed experimental evidence for the existence of water in the Mars regolith on Thursday."

Comments

Big and black

[florin]

It's always provocative when you hear they spotted a big black monolith in the regolith.

His first response was probably to ask if this meant Jenna was pregnant.

Re:Big and black

[maxume]

Is it really any wonder that elected officials care nothing for the opinions of the masses?

Re:Big and black

[Vectronic]

Yes.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

No no!
They found WMD's there so we'll have to invade.

Re:Big and black

[causality]

What you're complaining about is a reaction to the fact that our elected officials care nothing for our opinions. That they don't care and prefer to represent lobbyists and monied interests occurred first. That the people subsequently lost all respect for them, both as officials and as human beings, occurred second. Even if this weren't the case, they are our servants and they knew that when they signed up for the job, so either way they are utterly failing to represent us. That's true even if you don't like a crude joke about Jenna.

Re:Big and black

[hottyson]

Bush: "We will tell the public that Martian beings are terrorizers and weapons of mass destruction possessers."

Re:Big and black

[_KiTA_]

Even if this weren't the case, they are our servants and they knew that when they signed up for the job, so either way they are utterly failing to represent us. That's true even if you don't like a crude joke about Jenna.

I seriously doubt George W Bush... hell, ANY member of the Bush clan, has *ever* considered themselves civil "servants". They consider themselves the ruling class, pure and simple. I fear this is an entirely too common opinion of the "elite" nowadays...

Re:Big and black

[Jager Dave]

Hey - at least if Bush said that, you can guarantee that we'd have 'boots on the ground', on Mars, as quick as he can get them there. Bush: "We MUST liberate the planet Mars from the oppressive leadership of those pesky terrorist microbes!"

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove the stick from your butt pl0x

Re:Big and black

[maxume]

Given your characterization, they do an astonishing job of getting reelected. Maybe they use magic.

Also, it wasn't really that the crude bothered me, it was being disappointed in the wrapping of an insult in a joke that wasn't very funny.

Re:Big and black

[linzeal]

The American form of government is fundamentally broken in design and philosophy. The idea that so much executive power should rest with one man be it under the mandate of god or electorate is absurd and anachronistic. We should attempt again at remaking democracy in a more modern image with dutiful consideration that our inherent rights should be protected explicitly, that checks and balances on power be strengthened and perhaps it is time to reconsider the mechanisms of power in all branches. 500 elected positions at the national level cannot possibly represent the will of nearly 400 million people. There are many forms of government, and many variations on democracy that would likely guarantee more transparency in the political process than we enjoy today and by that hopefully make us again feel as if the government exists at the behest of a free people.

Re:Big and black

[delong]

prefer to represent lobbyists and monied interests occurred first

Lobbyists that represent and monied interests that are, well, citizens entitled to petition government just the same as you. The elected are their servants as well. It is beyond hubris why people like you believe that your voice is more important than the voice of a "monied interest", which has more to lose from overweening government power than you do, more likely than not.

You have an easy alternative. Start a PAC and represent the opinion of people like yourself. Write your representatives. Run for office. There are 300 million of us in the US. Nobody ever guaranteed that anybody would listen to you.

Re:Big and black

[CastrTroy]

That's what I thought when I read the summary. If there is true evidence of life on Mars, it could really rejuvenate the space program. Not only in the US, but in many other countries too. Who wouldn't want to be the first planet to bring back a sample of this stuff, so it can be studied more closely.

Re:Big and black

[VennData]

Naw, Bush'll say that look, now that we've discovered life, we can stop funding this wasteful gov't boondoggle and give the money back to the people.

Re:Big and black

[h4rm0ny]

The form of government of the USA is not "fundamentally broken in design and philosophy." In its design and philosophy, it is one of the best models that has been yet tried by the species. The problems have resulted from two things: Firstly, an uninformed and overly-obedient populace resulting from excessive media control and from everyone being too in-debt and thus too over-worked to invest time in their own government. Secondly, violation of the "design and philosophy" of the system by governing parties that has gone unpunished. You want a fundamental design and philosophy that works, but you have it! The Constitution is an advanced and well-thought out thing and shows impressive foresight and intelligence on the parts of its authors. But certain governments have wiped their arse on it. It's not a failure of fundamental design and philosophy, but of enforcement. Get the telecoms companies punished for breaking the law recently, and you've made a good start to fixing things.

Re:Big and black

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Punishing the telecoms for complying with the demands of federal officials will do nothing to address the fundamental problem: the federal officials felt within their rights to make the demands the first place.

Re:Big and black

[lordofwhee]

Do you have a few million dollars to 'donate' to get what you want? No? Well, neither does a vast majority of the US population. Money is all the US government listens to, the lobbyists are just mouthpieces.

Re:Big and black

[thecroc]

And by people he means people he knows. (Including himself)

Re:Big and black

[BeanThere]

"Elected" officials is the key word ... people keep voting them in, so what's the problem? If you vote in somebody that doesn't care about your opinion, you're going to get somebody that doesn't care about your opinion. It isn't rocket science. These people aren't appointed by the Queen of England, they're appointed by the people.

Re:Big and black

[tgrigsby]

You hit it on the head. He's an elitist, and he sees the average American as a resource, not entirely unlike cattle, to be kept fed and reasonably happy, so long as they can be used profitably. I guarantee you that his lies to get us into Iraq and the way he's used our military as a tool to enrich himself is no more than a reflection of this mindset.

Re:Big and black

[GooberToo]

Lobbyists that represent and monied interests that are, well, citizens entitled to petition government just the same as you.

I don't know which is scarier; the fact that you wrote this or the fact that it was modded insightful. It's not like your comment in any way reflects the actual state of affairs in government. At best, it should have been modded, "+1 ignorant yet wishful thinking". The sad FACT is, lobbyists bribe elected officials, effectively placing power over the entire country's policies and laws, in the hands of powerful corporations and select (wealthy/elite) citizenry. Lobbyists as they operate today have effectively created a hidden ruling class.

Your suggestion of creating our own PAC is laughable at best. The only REAL solution is to outlaw the practice; forcing our elected officials to actually communicate with the people that elected them i the first place. It is, after all, their fucking job in the first place. Despite it being their job, people somehow accept it is not. It's been suggested that fewer than 1% of our elected officials at the Federal level are not on the take in some form or fashion. This isn't surprising in the least considering it is almost impossible to get elected in the first place without some form of smudge on one's soul. Which is exactly why the system needs to be changed. All adults know the system is broken. The question is, which table will you be eating at tonight? The adults table or the children's table. The PAC suggestion is squarely at the later of the two.

As is, laws in the US are made three way. First and foremost, laws are made to benefit corporations, almost always to the detriment of the population, having been directed by lobbying interests. The second way laws are made is reactionary; which is to address the rare occasion the "ignorant" population actually objects. While there are quotes around "ignorant", it's not altogether inaccurate either. The third way is to create a meaningless law which benefits nothing but hopes to win favor from the ignorant, vocal masses whom like to see something done, even if the result is meaningless and shallow.

Long story short, the only solution is to prevent any form of lobbying in any semblance as is commonly practiced today. Your PAC suggestion only serves to become part of the illness that is our current government. Just because everyone else is looting doesn't mean it is okay for you to do it too.

It wasn't so long ago that our elected representatives would travel back and forth from Washington and their home state to shake hands, listen, and learn what the people wanted, and to determine how to best serve those that elected them. That's the origin of the town hall meeting. These days, that's rare. These days, that same time is usually spent vacationing; often with the monies and/or benefits provided for by lobbyists. And usually, the rare occasion a town hall meeting is held, it's sole function is normally to pacify, as lip service is the only intent.

Long story short, any system which allows lobbyists to function anything close to its current form in utterly broken and without merit.

Re:Big and black

[delong]

If your idea can't muster a few thousand supporters in your state or nationwide to donate $10-$100 each, then maybe it is your idea that is defective, not the lack of anyone hearing it.

Citizens freely associate and donate to mutual interests every day to accomplish local and national goals. Perhaps you should get involved and help out instead of sitting on Slashdot complaining.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

"The idea that so much executive power should rest with one man be it under the mandate of god or electorate is absurd and anachronistic."

You are fundamentally misinformed about the structure of the US government as set out in the constitution. Stung by the antics of a king with too much power over the colonies and who did little to protect them, the contributors to the constitution specifically set out to avoid concentration of power. This is why there are three separate branches, none of whom have complete power and all of whom are designed to have to battle with one another and compromise in order to get things done. The idea is purposeful sharing of power, even if it means that things get done more slowly.

The President, for example, has the power only to act on laws already passed by the Congress. He has the power to veto new bills, but then Congress can then override the veto if it has a sufficient number of votes. The President can't create law, declare war or even spend money not already allocated by Congress.

Because the authors of the Constitution realized that decisive action is sometimes required in an emergency, provisions were included to allow this over the short term. For instance, the President can send in troops somewhere, but needs to inform Congress and pull them back out if Congress doesn't proceed to declare war and/or provide money for continued action.

On top of all this is the Judicial branch that can declare any law passed by Congress or any action taken by the Executive branch to violate the Constitution and to thus be invalid.

At least this is how it's supposed to work. For a system to work, the "owners" of the system ... we the people ... need to step up to the plate when the rules are being violated. We've been letting our officials get away with things by not voting them out of office decisively.

Re:Big and black

[mccabem]

Correction: It's only the exploitable ones they've interest in.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Punishing the telecoms WOULD go a long way towards dealing with the fundamental problem. Had AT&T done the right thing, and called CNN when they were asked to perform illegal wiretaps, then perhaps the government would think twice about asking corporations to break the law.

The government shouldn't work on the honors system. If we can't prosecute the telecoms, then we will never be able to get evidence against the real criminals who ordered the wiretaps.

Re:Big and black

[Bearpaw]

To enrich himself? Do you have any evidence at all that GWBush has made money from Iraq? I don't know, a dollar figure, perhaps? Maybe a deposit slip or something?

Right, because the profits of war-profiteers are easy to trace, especially because they always leave a simple paper trail and put the proceeds into their checking accounts. I mean, it's not like they make huge real estate purchases in Paraguay or anything like that.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the Constitution can't protect itself from being used as toilet paper is a failure of the system. There will always be those willing to abandon principle in the pursuit of power; a system of government needs to be designed to keep this in check.

Re:Big and black

[extrasolar]

Right. Absence of evidence is evidence of guilt. Gotcha.

By the way, stop torturing illegal immigrants. It's not right.

Re:Big and black

[anagama]

Well, we people seem to have a choice of:

• A: Take in the rear with a red condom.
• B. Take it in the rear with a blue condom

It stands to reason that we keep electing pricks when all we have is a choice amongst various colors of pricks.

Re:Big and black

[jollyreaper]

Lobbyists that represent and monied interests that are, well, citizens entitled to petition government just the same as you. The elected are their servants as well. It is beyond hubris why people like you believe that your voice is more important than the voice of a "monied interest", which has more to lose from overweening government power than you do, more likely than not.

Damn, I think I'm going to have to paint my face in woad to comment on this one. Remember the line in Braveheart where Mad Mel is asking the rabble in his army "Do you think that the rich man has anything more to lose than you in this fight?" The rich man is putting his life and fortune on the line, the poor man is putting his life and maybe a few pennies in a natty purse. Who is putting more at risk in such a fight? Who has lost more, the peasant trampled to death beneath heavy cavalry or the noble who escapes with his life yet forfeits his lands? If you say it's the noble then I pity you.

Re:Big and black

[slashgrim]

congratulations, you've explained why that is a conspiracy theory and not a scientific theory

Re:Big and black

[snilloc]

One would think that a POTUS would be able to find a simpler method of laundering money than to start a long and costly war.

The total military budget in peacetime has got to be easier to mess with than the wartime one where you have to, you know, fight a war, which I understand isn't cheap.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr - YOU are the cancer that is killing America.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. That WAS evidence. Bush quietly made a huge real estate purchase in paraguay. Presumably you missed it if you watch fox "news" or something, but he was acting like some movie Nazi war criminal planning to flee to South America. Only now, since the cover was blown, he probably isn't planning to use the paraguay compound anymore.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/mainsection.tomphillips

Re:Big and black

[Chmcginn]

This monolith or this Monolith?

Re:Big and black

[gb506]

Did you even read that stupid article? Your "evidence" is a rumor printed in the Cuban state run news propped up by conspiracy theories after Jenna Bush visited Paraguay while working on behalf of poor children for the UN. Do you really think that Bush would send a 20-something Jenna Bush to negotiate a 100,000 acre land purchase? You're a loon with a serious case of BDS.

Re:Big and black

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Look up the Carlisle Group some time and ask that again.

Re:Big and black

[Jafafa Hots]

Bigoted? BIGOTED? I am very tired of people (oddly enough, usually right-wingers or religious people) claiming that criticism of their ideas, beliefs, actions or politics is bigotry.

Bigotry is criticism and disdain for someone based on innate characteristics - ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.

Criticizing ideas, beliefs, political philosophies, speech and actions is not bigotry, can never be bigotry. It can be correct, it can be incorrect, it can be a matter of opinion, it can be rude, and it can be a mask for bigotry such as criticizing someone's ideas not honestly because of their ideas but instead because of their race, etc...
Butu an honest criticism of ideas, political philosophy, beliefs, etc. is NOT bigotry. In fact, it's NECESSARY.

ALL ideas, systems of morality, philosophies and beliefs are fair game for criticism.

This keeps cropping up - people claiming that criticism of their political or religious beliefs is bigotry. I think this is a deliberate and cynical attempt to shield their ideas from fair scrutiny by co-opting the language of liberalism (in the generic sense) and in fact co-opting the suffering of victims of TRUE bigotry.

Re:Big and black

[Jafafa Hots]

Punishing the telecoms WOULD go a long way towards dealing with the fundamental problem. Had AT&T done the right thing, and called CNN when they were asked to perform illegal wiretaps, then perhaps the government would think twice about asking corporations to break the law.

The government shouldn't work on the honors system. If we can't prosecute the telecoms, then we will never be able to get evidence against the real criminals who ordered the wiretaps.

AT&T going to CNN with info about a crime would be like Bonnie going to Clyde.

Re:Big and black

[daemonburrito]

I really wish I could take you on a ride in the what-if machine. I want you to see the real agenda of the people who manipulate you by your simpleton "regulation is bad, m'kay" philosophy.

Tunneling of any kind is banned. No encryption allowed except on whitelisted "eCommerce (barf)" and banking sites. Only pre-approved applications can be run on your machine. Your operating system must be "safe" for the network, and must have technology to fight "piracy" and protect the big four's so-called IP.

I'm not making this up. Do some research, watch some CSPAN, read telco lobby policy papers, open your eyes. Stop being gullible and trusting anyone who feeds you Libertarian platitudes.

Re:Big and black

[Bombula]

The American form of government is still quite sound in design and philosophy. It is only 'fundamentally broken' in the details of its operation. A handful of minor modifications would solve a good number of its current flaws (though new flaws would, of course, likely emerge). The real problem is that the mechanisms for self-correction put in place by the constitution no longer work because corruption is so rampant. There is a tipping point of corruption past which the officials responsible for holding other officials accountable cannot themselves be trusted to carry out their duties. We have long passed this tipping point.

One very simple solution would be to limit service to one term in all branches of government. A major source of corruption is the fact that members of congress can become entrenched for decades. Career politicians are a major problem. Perhaps we should not have allowed politics to become a legitimate lifetime career path.

Re:Big and black

[BeanThere]

Last I checked, there were a whole bunch of candidates and parties to choose from.

Again, if people for some reason decide that they're going to collectively ignore all but two of the options, then that is still their voluntary choice.

Re:Big and black

[h4rm0ny]

Punishing the telecoms for complying with the demands of federal officials will do nothing to address the fundamental problem: the federal officials felt within their rights to make the demands the first place.

That it was federal officials that told them to break the law carries no more weight than if I or you told them to break the law. The officials are undoubtedly at fault, but that does not mean the telecoms aren't as well. It's really, really important to drive this point home, because it's something that the govnernment seems to be convincing people isn't the case... but the government is not the law, they are just a legislative body. They are bound by it as is anybody else as well as the Constitution which is the foundation of the law of the United States of America. In going against the constitution and the law, the US government has lost legitimacy. The authority of the US government no longer comes from electoral and legal process, but from force alone. And on that basis, people will claim moral equivalency to it based on the force they can lay claim to themselves.

Re:Big and black

[RodgerDodger]

Do you have any evidence at all that GWBush has made money from Iraq

Well, that kind of thing runs in the family. After all, we all know that his grandpappy was a war profiteer who traded with the Nazis.

More seriously: W may or may not have made money out of the war. Cheney certainly did - he failed to disclose several hundred thousand stock options and shares in companies with a financial interest in the war until 2003 - companies like his old stomping grounds of Haliburton. Heck, Haliburton paid him a salary in 2001 & 2002 - "deferred compensation", apparently.

And even if no elected official made a single cent out of Iraq, there's no disputing the fact that several of Bush's key supporters and fundraisers did make a heck of a lot of money out of Iraq over the last 5 years. The real proof will come after January next year, when we see where Dubya's devils go; that's when they will get their "deferred compensation".

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you, buddy. What's with these unwashed masses demanding to be heard, yearning to breathe free, when they don't have the cash to back it up? Let them eat cake.

Note to mods: I was using sarcasm to make a point there. See it now?

Re:Big and black

[Maxmin]

See if you can let this in. The legal definition of government corruption does not require that you yourself benefit directly from actions you took while in office, in order to qualify for indictment.

It can be your family (Bush Sr., Carlyle Group), your circle of friends, coworkers, former colleagues, etc (Cheney, Halliburton.) Because after you leave office, there are many ways that the benefit can come back to you.

What does it sound like when a government that awards no-bid contracts to companies with direct, tangible connections to the most senior elected and appointed officials? In the beginning, we were told this was necessary due to time constraints; we've now seen nearly seven years of war, and war profits, billions of dollars into the hands of this administration's close friends.

Now we're seeing no-bid oil contracts in Iraq, going to good friends of this administration.

Do you need a Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos to make a determination of corruption, with visible caches of money, cronies spilling out their pockets? No.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

You're using a line from "Braveheart", a very poor approximation of historical fiction, to make a point. There should be a way to mod you down for that.

Re:Big and black

[RodgerDodger]

Sorry, but any form of government that requires the People to keep it working, and which does not take into account the fact that the populace is "uninformed and overly-obedient" is broken today. This is not to say it was broken 200 years ago, because it wasn't. But there are a lot of compromises from those early days that don't make sense today (e.g. the Electoral College), so it's clear that not everything is the same today as it was then.

As for trying to punish the telecom companies for following the request of the government - well, I for one can't see how you can punish someone for doing what the Executive Branch asked for without punishing the Executive Branch as well. After all, if it was illegal to do, it was illegal to ask for.

Re:Big and black

[Maxmin]

No paper trail is required to prove corruption. All that has to be shown is that your people benefited, that friends, colleagues, former coworkers etc. gained from your decisions while in office.

The Halliburton no-bid contracts are an excellent starting point, with many more like them to investigate.

Re:Big and black

[h4rm0ny]

Sorry, but any form of government that requires the People to keep it working, and which does not take into account the fact that the populace is "uninformed and overly-obedient" is broken today.

Do we say a system is broken because it doesn't work when people stop using it? I don't know what government your expecting that doesn't depend on the People to keep it working, but I don't see anything other than a Machine dictatorship fitting the requirements. The existing US constitution and body of law provides what is needed to prevent the current corruptions. The issue is that the government is not working according to these rules. Ultimately, something must enforce the rules. Saying that the problem is with the rules themselves is not a complete truth, only very partially.

As for trying to punish the telecom companies for following the request of the government - well, I for one can't see how you can punish someone for doing what the Executive Branch asked for without punishing the Executive Branch as well.

There seems to be a growing confusion over what powers the US government has. Someone working in government has no more right to tell you to break a law than I have. And someone working in government has no more right to break a law than I have. If I tell you to murder someone and you're daft enough to do it, the crime is still yours. If you can only manage to convict the telecoms, it's still very much worth doing. But by all means try and get the people in government who requested illegal activities and provided false assurances as well. Why on Earth would you advocate failing twice, just because you can't help failing once?

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, I just came here from Reddit and this is the first thing I see!

Yes, the form of government of the USA is TOO fundamentally broken in design and philosophy, by virtue of the fact that its design and philosophy did not prevent the uninformed and overly-obedient populace nor did it prevent the violations.

Now everybody else with anything to say about politics or religion, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP so we can find out what the hell is going on on MARS!

Re:Big and black

[cayenne8]

"It is beyond hubris why people like you believe that your voice is more important than the voice of a "monied interest", which has more to lose from overweening government power than you do, more likely than not."

Well, I'm not sure when it changed...but, I thought the elected representatives were supposed to vote and represent the interests of their consituency that voted them into office in the first place.

I don't think my state has a large representation backing up special interests, say, like the RIAA or Movie cartel (just 2 random, but, popular interests on /.)...so, why are they listening to them to vote on their issues rather than come listen to the actual voters in this state on how they feel about fair use legislation, or even like the tying of P2P and college funding? I'm pretty sure none of our legislators asked what 'we the people' of our state thought on this. Nope...they listened to the money people of an association that is not a part of our state.

We are citizens of our state first, the citizens of the United States second...or, at least, that's how it was in the beginning of the union.

Re:Big and black

[amRadioHed]

Check again. Just because a name is on the ballot doesn't mean it has any chance of getting elected in our current system. Our first across the post voting system makes this true, like it or not.

Re:Big and black

[ZeroFactorial]

What they've ACTUALLY found is GOLD!

There's GOLD in them thar regoliths!!!!

In other news, NASA has just received trillions of dollars in funding from businesses who have taken a sudden interest in the space program.

Re:Big and black

[emagery]

i do agree, this is way off topic... BUT, do we have an extradition treaty with paraguay?

Re:Big and black

[bigstrat2003]

Actually, you're wrong, it can be bigotry. Let's say you loathe Christianity and everything it stands for. Fair enough, that's your right. But, the instant you assume someone is (for example) an intolerant, unthinking asshole because he/she is a Christian, you've crossed the line into bigotry.

The problem is your definition of bigotry is off. Bigotry is judging someone, regardless of their individual merits, according to some group that they fit into, and it isn't limited to innate characteristics.

Re:Big and black

[bigstrat2003]

Your suggestion of creating our own PAC is laughable at best. The only REAL solution is to outlaw the practice; forcing our elected officials to actually communicate with the people that elected them i the first place. It is, after all, their fucking job in the first place. Despite it being their job, people somehow accept it is not. It's been suggested that fewer than 1% of our elected officials at the Federal level are not on the take in some form or fashion. This isn't surprising in the least considering it is almost impossible to get elected in the first place without some form of smudge on one's soul. Which is exactly why the system needs to be changed. All adults know the system is broken. The question is, which table will you be eating at tonight? The adults table or the children's table. The PAC suggestion is squarely at the later of the two.

What the fuck? After all your talk of recognizing the facts of the situation, you have the gall to say that creating a PAC representing our own interests is a childish solution? Look, it isn't a great solution. I don't like it. But, the reality is, it'll probably be significantly harder to fix the system, than to make the corrupt system work for us. That isn't childish, it's pragmatism.

Re:Big and black

[bigstrat2003]

It wouldn't be true if the people weren't complicit in propping up the system as it is. Things can be different, if people actually vote for who they want for, instead of voting against one of the two major candidates.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to argue against you on this one. The philosophy is inherently flawed because it requires an educated and engaged populace. The majority of human beings will never care about education and will always seek to let someone else handle being engaged. Hence, the design can not work. To state that the "uninformed and overly-obedient populace" results form "excessive media control" is false. The "uninformed and overly-obedient populace" results from human nature.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously there is no intelligent life on Slashdot

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

That's some pretty shameful moderation: +4 insightful for leftist flamebait followed by -1 flamebait for a right wing post that is hardly more inflammatory.

Re:Big and black

[TheoMurpse]

The only REAL solution is to outlaw the practice

That might violate the First Amendment. However, an alternate soution is to vote for people who refuse to take money from lobbyists. See the Change Congress movement, started (??) by our pal Larry Lessig.

Re:Big and black

[kvezach]

Could one circumvent that equivalence by downweighting the votes of those that accept money? It doesn't alter the right of free speech or to peacably assemble, since it pertains to the candidates (those taking money) instead of the PACs (those giving money).

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Jenna is pregnant...that's why she just had a shotgun wedding.

Re:Big and black

[tez_h]

Right. Absence of evidence is evidence of guilt. Gotcha.

No, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Absence of evidense is evidense of absence, especially when you know what you're looking for and have been looking hard.

-Tez

Re:Big and black

[eyendall]

The first problem is that "our opinions" are mostly uninformed crap, and if "respected" would do more harm than good. The second problem is that "we" elect politicians who are as stupid as "we" are.

Sig: Anyone who wants to be an elected politician should be immediately disqualified from seeking public office.

Re:Big and black

[eyendall]

I thought this argument had been put to rest with the Nuremburg war crimes trials. "I was only following orders" is not a legitimate defense.

Re:Big and black

[_KiTA_]

i do agree, this is way off topic... BUT, do we have an extradition treaty with paraguay?

No. Why do you think he bought a house in Paraguay?

Re:Big and black

[linzeal]

The presidency of the US has become quite different than what it was set out to be. An executive order can do anything except collect taxes.

Re:Big and black

[darkpixel2k]

And even if no elected official made a single cent out of Iraq, there's no disputing the fact that several of Bush's key supporters and fundraisers did make a heck of a lot of money out of Iraq over the last 5 years.

I think you're on to something. Now all we need is to find a way for a company like Smith and Wesson or Boeing to build equipment the military needs WITHOUT ANY FUCKING MONEY! That way, it won't lookDAMN YOUR(sic) SMART!

Re:Big and black

[amRadioHed]

People aren't propping up the system, they are playing by it. With the system we have voting against one of the major candidates is frequently the most rational choice. You can wish that everyone will en masse ignore the system we have and vote for who they want, but that's just a pipe dream.

Re:Big and black

[bigstrat2003]

People aren't propping up the system, they are playing by it.

Those two are one and the same. I understand why people do it, but they also need to accept their guilt in propping up the broken system if they want to try to work it.

Re:Big and black

[TheoMurpse]

Maybe, maybe not. The law in many contexts has something called constructivism. For example, lowering someone's salary by 90% would be called "constructive termination." If you're a landlord and you allow a complex to go to shit, you have "constructively evicted" your tenants, and if they move out or stop paying, you'd lose a lawsuit because you as the landlord breached the agreement first, not them.

I think (although, as a law student, what I think has very little experience to back it up) this sort of thing might be a "constructive" First Amendment violation. There's a famous Supreme Court case in which, after the Supreme Court had already held that banning the burning of the US flag as a political statement was a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

Right after that, Congress passed a law banning burning the US flag because it was a threat to public safety (which is a permitted reason for violating free speech--see the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case).

The Supreme Court responded that they clearly were clearly passing this law to violate free speech and not to actually protect the public from fires. Despite evidence to the contrary in the cases listed below, I'm too lazy go actually look for this case, but I'm pretty sure that this happened relatively the way I described.

The Supreme Court may not have used the phrase "constructive abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech," but they most likely could have, because that's basically what they held.

In this case, I would almost wager that it (1) does alter the right of free speech as much as saying "when you make a speech, it has to be in Spanish so fewer people can understand you," and (2) that it's a constructive abridgement of the freedom of speech. To get away with it, I think the government would have to cloak the legislation very thickly in discussion and evidence that their goal is to eliminate corruption and unfair influence of money on elections, as opposed to "hushing up monied interests."

In support, the courts have permitted some campaign finance reform before, but I've not read those Supreme Court cases. I would bet, though, that the Court argued something a little related to your argument: that limiting political donations to campaigns is not targeting free speech, but rather targeting something else and affecting free speech merely incidentally.

This sort of ruling shows up in Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939)

Prohibition of such conduct would not abridge the constitutional liberty since such activity bears no necessary relationship to the freedom [of speech].

Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)

[The] practical effect of the San Diego ordinance is to eliminate the billboard as an effective medium of communication. [Thus, it is necessary to assess] the "substantiality of the governmental interests asserted" and "whether those interests could be served by means that would be less intrusive on activity protexted by the First Amendment."

This is referred to by my First Amendment casebook as "content-neutral restrictions." Check out cases like United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (upholding a law banning the burning of draft cards because it strongly hindered administration of the draft, as opposed to striking down the law as an abridgement of the freedom of speech). This case established the four-step "O'Brien test" that is used by the Supreme Court to judge abridgements of speech:

1. regulation must be within the government's power
2. further an important or substantial government interest
3. that interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech
4. prohibit no more speech than is essential to further that interest

Re:Big and black

[ArcherB]

See if you can let this in. The legal definition of government corruption does not require that you yourself benefit directly from actions you took while in office, in order to qualify for indictment.

It can be your family (Bush Sr., Carlyle Group), your circle of friends, coworkers, former colleagues, etc (Cheney, Halliburton.) Because after you leave office, there are many ways that the benefit can come back to you.

So if anyone that ever supported Bush does well under his administration, then it's corruption? GWB has no idea who I am. I voted for him and I'm doing better than I was 8 years ago. Must be a conspiracy!!! Wow! and I'm not even a member of The Carlyle group, Skulls and Bones, the Free Masons, the Knights of the Templar or any other organization that conspiracy theorists love to point to so much. Quick! Someone call Prison Planet! ArcherB benefited from a good economy and hard work... I mean, he did well because he's a Bush Cronie!

What does it sound like when a government that awards no-bid contracts to companies with direct, tangible connections to the most senior elected and appointed officials? In the beginning, we were told this was necessary due to time constraints; we've now seen nearly seven years of war, and war profits, billions of dollars into the hands of this administration's close friends.

Now we're seeing no-bid oil contracts in Iraq, going to good friends of this administration.

Do you need a Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos to make a determination of corruption, with visible caches of money, cronies spilling out their pockets? No.

Um, It looks like I'm the first to tell you this, but the Iraqi government is deciding which companies handle the drilling there, NOT George Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, the Free Masons or anyone else. I guess the facts don't sound as good as your conspiracy theories.

Re:Big and black

[ROU Nuisance Value]

Parent's definition of bigotry is perfectly correct. What you're describing is inductive reasoning, in which the reasoner attempts to establish the truth of a general rule by looking at lots of particular instances. For example: From the experience of meeting many, many, many stupid, bigoted, hypocritical and lying Christians -- and plenty of other so-called Christians who may not be personally bigoted or stupid, but who realize their brethren are and yet have absolutely nothing to say about it -- someone might conclude that all Christians are intolerant and stupid liars. Of course, this doesn't absolutely falsify the possibility that there are, somewhere on the surface of this planet, professed Christians who actually follow Christ's teachings. But as an heuristic for making sense of the contemporary American political scene, it's not half-bad.

Re:Big and black

[ArcherB]

That's some pretty shameful moderation: +4 insightful for leftist flamebait followed by -1 flamebait for a right wing post that is hardly more inflammatory.

You must be new here.

Bush=Satan (+5 Insightful)
Bush=President (-5 Flamebait)

Re:Big and black

[Maxmin]

Uh huh. It's plain that the first few words of that second paragraph triggered your "oh jeeze this is anti-Bush!" filter, and out tumbled your standard "fucking conspiracy moon-bats!!" rant.

Let's see in a year's time where you sit with Obama, supposing he gets elected. Will you be so staunchly pro-President, whomever it is, or will your evident partisan attitude have you saying the same sorts of things about Obama that I'm saying about Bush today?

And, what do you think of Obama? Do you think he is a militant black Islamic fundamentalist, and quite possibly a closeted gay? Is he preparing to wreak terroristic actions on his own country when he takes office?

I, for one, can't wait for the right wing losers to fully unload with stuff like that, as its connection to reality isn't just missing, it's totally random.

Prepare to assume the "moon-bat" mantle, ArcherB.

Re:Big and black

[RodgerDodger]

Well, for starters, you can put out military contracts worth billions of dollars out to competitive bids, rather than just awarding no-bid contracts to your buddies.

Secondly, you can stop putting pressure onto the new Iraqi government to allow US oil companies complete & free access to Iraqi oil fields.

Thirdly, you could actually supply the military what it needs, instead of putting troops into the field with inadequate body armour.

Those things would be a help.

Re:Big and black

[darkpixel2k]

Well, for starters, you can put out military contracts worth billions of dollars out to competitive bids, rather than just awarding no-bid contracts to your buddies.

Hey--I'm betting I can beat the Haliburton contracts too. I'll make guns for the military and it'll only cost $5.00 per gun. ...of course I wouldn't rely on it personally to defend anything. No-bin contracts seem suspicious if you are basing your purchasing requirements entirely off price and forget about quality or the solution to your problem. Haliburton may (I don't know) have a better solution that anyone.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated for fraud--just that I'm not going to jump on the "hate Bush" bandwagon until there's some real evidence.

Secondly, you can stop putting pressure onto the new Iraqi government to allow US oil companies complete & free access to Iraqi oil fields.

Why shouldn't we ask for oil. How much money have we dumped into liberating their country? It would be nice if they would help us our financially. Of course it's their oil and their right to do what they want with it. If they sold it to us at a slight discount, we could help them rebuild their country by purchasing oil from them.

Thirdly, you could actually supply the military what it needs, instead of putting troops into the field with inadequate body armour.

I know nothing about that topic--I'll google around, but I totally agree. Give our troops the necessary equipment. It'd be nice if every single one could come home safe and sound. The better the training and equipment, the closer we can get to that goal.

Re:Big and black

[Jafafa Hots]

No, that's prejudice. Prejudice and bigotry are not the same thing.

Re:Big and black

[ArcherB]

Let's see in a year's time where you sit with Obama, supposing he gets elected. Will you be so staunchly pro-President, whomever it is, or will your evident partisan attitude have you saying the same sorts of things about Obama that I'm saying about Bush today?

I'll probably treat Obama with same set of standards that I treat Bush now and I treated Clinton about 8-16 years ago. I support them sometimes and oppose them others. I supported Clinton in Bosnia, for example and thought he got a raw deal on the whole Whitewater thing. I support Bush in Iraq. After all, what did Milosovich do that Hussein didn't? Nothing. Hussein is a magnitude worse than Milosovich. So it would be hypocritical to have supported Clinton in Bosnia and not Bush in Iraq.
I was in the service, so I learned to respect the uniform, no matter who wears it.

The bottom line is that I think Bush gets a raw deal. He was hated before his inauguration and it has gone downhill since. I see the irony when people say, "Bush had the whole world's sympathy after 9-11. There was nothing another country wouldn't do for us. We had their unyielding support and Bush fucked it up by invading Iraq!". Uh, if we had such strong support from them, wouldn't they have been behind us in Iraq? Or did they support is in anything THEY wanted us to do? I see people say he stole the election. Well, several independent recounts show that Bush really won so it was Al Gore that tried to steal the election. Funny how I have seen no one at all say, "OOPS! MY Bad! Sorry Mr. President."

So, you'll have to forgive me if I stick up for someone who gets a raw deal daily. You'll have to understand why I stand up and call bullshit when someone says Bush is Hitler, or corrupt, or stupid, or an evil genius or whatever. I've heard them all by people who honestly believe them. I find it is my job to tell them to put down the bong and try to open their minds and not hate someone simply because they have an R or D after their name.

And, what do you think of Obama? Do you think he is a militant black Islamic fundamentalist, and quite possibly a closeted gay? Is he preparing to wreak terroristic actions on his own country when he takes office?

No, I think Obama is a brilliant man, excellent speaker and has a genuinely good heart. He will make an excellent president one day. That day, however is not today. He is simply not ready. In twenty years, he will be. Whatever positions he has the courage to admit, he changes soon after. Not that it's a bad thing or wrong to change your mind, but don't come out and say, "That's not what I meant" when it would be more honest to say, "I wasn't properly briefed on that topic and shouldn't have opened my mouth until I was". Obama just drips with inexperience and I don't want my president to have to go through several years of On-The-Job-Training. Republicans will eat his lunch and make the whole country look like Carter is in charge again!

I, for one, can't wait for the right wing losers to fully unload with stuff like that, as its connection to reality isn't just missing, it's totally random.

And when they do, if they do, I will call bullshit and unload on them, just as I do for the left-wing "Bush=Hitler" moonbats.

Re:Big and black

[ivan256]

What you're complaining about is a reaction to the fact that our elected officials care nothing for our opinions. That they don't care and prefer to represent lobbyists and monied interests occurred first.

You're so wrong. They care very much about what our opinions are. And we've demonstrated beyond any doubt that our interests are best represented by supporting the candidate that has taken, and thus can spend the most money.

Re:Big and black

[bigstrat2003]

No, they aren't, but bigotry is a subset of prejudice. Not all prejudice is bigotry, but I maintain that this instance of prejudice is also bigotry.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Had AT&T done the right thing, and called CNN when they were asked to perform illegal wiretaps...

Wrong. Calling CNN is a wrong thing. CNN has no business in any government. They are not the justice department. CNN is part of the irresponsible infotainment industry.

Not doing the illegal taps would have been the right thing.

Re:Big and black

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the telecoms companies punished for breaking the law recently, and you've made a good start to fixing things.

So, are you voting for Green Cynthia McKinney, or for Libertarian Bob Barr? Or is it that you're hoping for Clinton to get the nomination by the Humphrey method?

Re:Big and black

[ncc74656]

Criticizing ideas, beliefs, political philosophies, speech and actions is not bigotry, can never be bigotry.

You might try telling B. Hussein Obama about that concept, considering how he likes to pull out the race card every time someone dares to call him out.

Re:Big and black

[tgrigsby]

I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't heard: The Bush family's fortune is in oil. They have oil contacts up the ying yang, and ties to various corporations that have profited enormously through the Iraq occupation. Cheney also has oil and contractor connections. Both parties are on public record as having profited from the rise of those companies they are associated with. Are you so naive as to think that his family hasn't made money off war profiteering?

So ask yourself, are you just making shit up to sooth your guilty conscience over the fact that you voted for this asshole, knowing now the way you would have known in 2004 if you'd only paid attention to the news and had a memory more than 5 minutes long that he was a liar and a murderer by proxy?

http://views.tgrigsby.com/

Re:Big and black

[tgrigsby]

A taxpayer who votes for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

A citizen who expects a functioning government voting for John McCain is like a passenger on a plane being piloted by Pee Wee Herman.

Or how about this:

A parent who expects their children to grow up in a world in which the United States has good schools, funded social net programs, a functional military capable of defending our country, a thriving economy, clean air, abundant clean power, strong relations with the major powers in the world, an effective plan for reducing terrorism that doesn't involve invading random countries based on lies, that votes for John McCain is an example of an evolutionary dead end.

Whew... that was fun... kind of cleansing, really... but not as much as watching McSame lose in November. Now *that's* going to be delicious!

http://views.tgrigsby.com/

Re:Big and black

[tgrigsby]

I voted for him and I'm doing better than I was 8 years ago.

Then you, sir, are in the minority. Because the economy is in the toilet, we have lost thousands of jobs that have yet to be recovered, and hundreds of billions of dollars that could go to social services or even -- gasp! -- tax cuts for the poor and middle class, have been sucked out of our coffers and thrown at no-bid contracts given to companies that have ties to Bush and Cheney.

http://views.tgrigsby.com/

Re:Big and black

[tgrigsby]

And, what do you think of Obama? Do you think he is a militant black Islamic fundamentalist, and quite possibly a closeted gay? Is he preparing to wreak terroristic actions on his own country when he takes office?

ROTFLOL!!! Okay, I hadn't heard the "closeted gay" thing yet. Is that what Faux News is spouting now? That's rich...

http://views.tgrigsby.com/

Re:Big and black

[tgrigsby]

Well, several independent recounts show that Bush really won

Except that those recounts are by organizations with questionable ties to the GOP, and other nonpartisan groups show that Gore won by a slim margin. And all that assumes that the voters were allowed to vote -- in several counties in southern Florida, there was blatant voter fraud, with people taken off the rolls and denied the ability to vote because a felon list from TEXAS was used to ban people in highly pro-Gore districts from voting.

http://views.tgrigsby.com/

Re:Big and black

[tgrigsby]

You must be new to Earth.

Bush is Satan.
Bush stole the office of President aided by an out of control NeoCon GOP.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Big and black

[causality]

A taxpayer who votes for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

A citizen who expects a functioning government voting for John McCain is like a passenger on a plane being piloted by Pee Wee Herman.

Or how about this:

A parent who expects their children to grow up in a world in which the United States has good schools, funded social net programs, a functional military capable of defending our country, a thriving economy, clean air, abundant clean power, strong relations with the major powers in the world, an effective plan for reducing terrorism that doesn't involve invading random countries based on lies, that votes for John McCain is an example of an evolutionary dead end.

Whew... that was fun... kind of cleansing, really... but not as much as watching McSame lose in November. Now *that's* going to be delicious!

http://views.tgrigsby.com/

If you can get past your self-assured "hah, MY guy is so much better than YOUR guy" attitude (while it was a reaction to his similar attitude, being an equal and opposite reaction it is no better) and take a hard look at not just the two candidates but the two parties from which they originate, you'll find that neither of them represent the people. This has been the case for quite some time now.

Both were long ago taken over by statists who realize that inch by inch, tiny increase by tiny increase, they can eventually have a "perfect" police/nanny state (there are serveral terms which would apply) where everyone is told what's good for them, how they should live, what they should and should not want out of life, etc. and of course all of this is "for your safety" or "for your own good" or "to protect the children" or "to fight terrorism" or "for the War on (some) Drugs" and probably more emphasis on a "War on Obesity" and similar is around the corner. Just take a good long look at the history of the 20th century. Look at the size of government (in terms of percentage of GDP) in 1901 and compare that to the size of government in 2000. Look at the number of agencies, laws, law enforcement. Look at the tax burden in terms of average percentage of annual income. Take a good long look at how people used to be expected to plan for their own retirement and now they "need" government programs on which they have become dependent. Look at how people used to routinely purchase and negotiate their own individual health insurance and how the wage freeze of World War II caused people to expect this to come from employers, which effectively made it near-impossible to obtain it on your own since you don't have that kind of bargaining power. Now the government wants to get into the health insurance business -- make no mistake, the current media discussion is not a debate, it's there to get us used to the idea. Look at how much direct interaction the average citizen has with the federal government, then look at whether this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Look at the income tax, the way that it allows politicians to use carrot-and-stick methods to control behavior, the way a larger and larger class of people is being created who have zero federal tax liability and therefore little incentive to care about the financial impact of excessive government spending, and then ask yourself why the Constitution had to be amended to allow for this (the Founding Fathers were not ignorant of the concept of an income tax -- it is not a new invention).

I want you to seriously consider how much this country has changed in the last century alone. This change is not random in the slightest. Every last piece of it points in the same direction: an increasingly larger and more powerful and more centralized government, in which more and more power is in the hands of fewer and fewer people with less and less oversight. All of which is "for your own good", of course. Ask yourself whether either Barack Obama or John McCain would have a snowbal

Re:Big and black

[causality]

Uh huh. It's plain that the first few words of that second paragraph triggered your "oh jeeze this is anti-Bush!" filter, and out tumbled your standard "fucking conspiracy moon-bats!!" rant.

Just as an aside, I wanted to say that this is a very good observation. People who are not entirely honest with themselves (because if you did this and were aware of it, you couldn't continue doing it) really do "think" this way and it seems like most people sorely need to understand this. This is not thinking at all; this is mechanically applying a rule and we have machines that can do that. People tend to make a faulty assumption that if they don't set out to do something deliberately, then they're not doing it at all. Thus, when you point out that they are "thinking" this way, they decide whether they were trying to "think" this way, conclude that they were not, and decide you're either full of shit or trying to antagonize them.

In this way, such errors are self-protecting. You could say that they're cloaked in a form of denial. They're reinforced by repetition and bandwagon appeal because bad examples are everywhere. They're also learned behavior (that is, communicated from person to person). For this reason I consider them a sort of "thought-virus," a mental pathogen with no real life of its own that reproduces and expresses itself by means of a host. They are to thoughts what viruses are to DNA. I would further venture that emotional trauma (especially fear-based) is to this pathogen what piercing the cell membrane is to a virus, because there are few if any other ways to shut down or de-emphasize the kind of mindfulness and critical thinking that would otherwise reject it.

woo

[nomadic]

How fortunate that a potentially major scientific discovery happens on President Bush's watch. His keen intellect, intense curiousity of the natural world, and scientific rationality has been such a boon to our country and indeed our world.

Re:woo

[bsDaemon]

Would you pass up such a golden opportunity for a large-scale, manned mission to Mars?

Re:woo

[Deadfyre_Deadsoul]

Bush 'quick, nuke them, so we can keep our oil rights there."

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Not since the Great Gordo have we seen a sharper mind.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

How great would it be to post that seriously about a president of ours?

Re:woo

[pitchpipe]

Imagine briefing unintelligent life about the discovery of unintelligent life.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Bush'll never have a plan to get back to Earth!

Re:woo

[gregbot9000]

Seriously, why the run around. Did they go to the president when the viking Labeled Release results ended up positive?

Maybe the life forms are some sort of stem cells and they're checking on the legality of bringing back samples?

Re:woo

[hitmark]

to do what? invade to liberate the oil fields there from those muslim terrorists of mars?

or could it be that mars is holding large quantities of biological weapons, ready to be unleashed on usa?

Re:woo

[YttriumOxide]

Well, in the VERY unlikely event that Mars ever had large scale life, there could be oil fields under the surface.

I'd actually be in two minds about it were to be the case though and we considered sending people to go get it. On one hand I'd hope not - we need to get off oil for more than just the reason that we're running out. On the other, it'd SERIOUSLY pick up the world's space programs.

Re:woo

[Devout_IPUite]

Bush has been doing just fine job of gutting NASA. No one cares about NASA so they have to fight for budget all the time. I'm sure if Bush was in their corner they'd get more funding. He's not. They're not.

Obama isn't in the pocket of fundamentalists and as such might actually realize science is important, and no just something that gets in the way of religion.

Re:woo

[GBC]

I knew it! WMD = Weapons of Martian Design. Countdown to US-led invasion of Mars in 10, 9, 8...

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ho! Yes! Is funny because Bush has none of those things! Ohhh!

Re:woo

[Lord Ender]

He supports manned space explorations. Its one of his only controversial policies I agree with. Having all humans in one biosphere means that life and intelligence (so far as we know) could be wiped from the face of the universe by a single meteor impact. Manned space exploration is a necessary step in humanity's primary raison d'etra: the perpetuation of life.

Re:woo

[Thiez]

Actually, no. It would cost way too much to bring oil from another planet to ours. If Mars were made entirely out of oil (so once there you would spend $0 to obtain any amount of oil) it would probably still be several orders of magnitude more expensive than trying to manufacture oil on earth.

Anyone on slashdot who knows the cost of taking one kilo of stuff from Mars to Earth?

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Bush would have taken the matter more seriously if they told him they'd discovered oil on Mars instead.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

If he leads that charge, I see nothing wrong with that.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Tee hee! You're so smart!

Re:woo

[InlawBiker]

To paraphrase one of my favorite Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey, "Whether they find a life there or not, I think Mars should be called an enemy planet."

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Not now, batin'!

Re:woo

[DeadDecoy]

Well we can't pull out of Mars just yet you see. It's a quagmire out there and if we leave, the aliens will win. We need a troop surge so we can secure our way of life and liberate the shit out of them.

Re:woo

[Joe Tie.]

Do you really need the exploration part if the goal is a colonization though? It seems like if the main benefit of human exploration is a sideproduct of it, testing humans in space, than it'd be cheaper and more efficient to just directly test humans in space and methods for creating artificial environments here on earth.

Re:woo

[Nathrael]

Mass drivers may work.

Re:woo

[CastrTroy]

Is it though? Until we actually get the technology to travel to other planets we could inhabit, or to terraform other planets to make them inhabitable, then what's the point of sending actual people? It's nice that people can live outside the sphere of earth, in space stations and such, but they couldn't survive long out there without refreshments from down below. In the event that some meteor did hit earth, and made it uninhabitable, even if we did send people outside the planet so they wouldn't get killed, the wouldn't end up lasting long. Probably run out of supplies in a couple months. Instead, it makes much more sense just to send robots up, do the dirty work, and leave keep the very useful and smart people safe here on earth.

Re:woo

[LearnToSpell]

This is all wildly inaccurate, but I remember reading a while (15 years?) ago that it cost $1,000/lb. to launch something into space. Add inflation, fuel prices, landing that something somewhere, etc. and come up with a random number. If Mars were made entirely out of oil, I'm sure we'd be tempted, but oil, like many other fluids, can be heavy and stupid to transport. It would certainly help building/running things on the ground there though.

Re:woo

[SupremoMan]

Just tell him you found Oil there, he will get you back in a jippy.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding, I'm so glad Bush was president during these amazing time, and not fat, ne'er do well prevaricator Al Gore!

Re:woo

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Jiffy. The word is jiffy.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

The probe doesn't even have instruments for detecting signs of life ... and Viking ... it's from the 70's (though I do have great respect for the engineering that set the life span of the Pioneer and Voyager probes).

Re:woo

[flewp]

I often see the number quoted as 10,000 dollars per pound. I'm on my way out the door so I don't have time to actually "run the numbers" on it, but here's a link that may be useful:

http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf

At quick glance (and first google result for "cost per pound of launching to space" or something) it seems to list different launch vehicles and hte cost of the payload to orbit.

Re:woo

[wrf3]

Read C. S. Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet for one take on "the perpetuation of life."

Re:woo

[thecroc]

It's not like we just "get" technologies. We have to actually research them. And the only way to research manned space travel is to do manned space travel.

Re:woo

[NemosomeN]

If the transport vehicle ran on petroleum, you could just use the Martian oil to power it. A huge waste of oil, but if you don't, you'll never get to use any of it anyway. This is not to say that I think this is a good idea, or even a likely possibility, just saying that the cost of getting the oil back would be much, much lower than normally, since the fuel would be "free". (If you don't use it, the market price would be 0)

Re:woo

[spacefiddle]

Ink on a page!

Re:woo

[noidentity]

How fortunate that a potentially major scientific discovery happens on President Bush's watch. His keen intellect, intense curiousity of the natural world, and scientific rationality has been such a boon to our country and indeed our world.

I know you're joking, but Bush did find an error in some Fermilab calculations a while back. Don't underestimate him.

Re:woo

[a whoabot]

No, he meant he would get you back encased in the body of a Rromani person.

Re:woo

[hugecabbage]

Yeah, Bush'll never have a plan to get back to Earth!

Doubtful, since that would be the most sensible approach to manning Mars....

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a quagmire out there[...]

Looks like somebody is still stuck in the past...

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush "supports" manned space exploration as long as he doesn't have to fund any of it. All of the great NASA projects he has been mumbling about do not need serious funding until long after his presidency is over.

Bush also has a long record of claiming to be "one hundred percent" behind some project as he shakes the leaders' hands in a photo-op, then, two weeks later, slashing the project's budget.

Bush raises "insincerity" to a whole new level.

Re:woo

[khallow]

Given that there's a lot more readers than of you and given that reading a book is a considerably longer process than explaining a detail, please save our time. What is C. S. Lewis's take on "the perpetuation of life"?

Re:woo

[MichaelSmith]

Seriously, why the run around. Did they go to the president when the viking Labeled Release results ended up positive? Maybe the life forms are some sort of stem cells and they're checking on the legality of bringing back samples?

They might have to send this experiment again, this time to the north pole in two years time. I wonder if they can cook up another phoenix fast enough?

Re:woo

[MichaelSmith]

If the transport vehicle ran on petroleum, you could just use the Martian oil to power it. A huge waste of oil, but if you don't, you'll never get to use any of it anyway. This is not to say that I think this is a good idea, or even a likely possibility, just saying that the cost of getting the oil back would be much, much lower than normally, since the fuel would be "free". (If you don't use it, the market price would be 0)

No. Fuels like oil only have energy in the presence of an oxidizer. On Earth our oxidizers are in finite supply. On mars and in deep space they hardly exist at all. You can't use oil for fuel anywhere away from Earth.

Re:woo

[Chris Tucker]

It's what men CRAVE!

Re:woo

[NiteShaed]

Gypsy. The word is Gypsy.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think some one is trying to get funding by telling our bright prez that the terorists have moved to Mars and hiding in a cave up there.

Re:woo

[Opyros]

Weston, the mad scientist, wants to colonize the (inhabited) planet of Mars - and justifies it on the grounds that humanity is a higher form of life than the Martians, as well as that of loyalty to one's own kind. There is a reasonable plot summary at Wikipedia (see especially the section "Weston's speech and its translation"). Of course, if Mars did have intelligent inhabitants, the grandparent's premise concerning the need to preserve our possibly unique intelligent species would no longer hold.

Re:woo

[uncoveror]

Viking found a lot more than microbes. It found the Zhti Ti Kofft! Read all about it. http://www.uncoveror.com/nomars.htm http://www.uncoveror.com/zhtitikofft.htm

Re:woo

[shellbeach]

Seriously, why the run around. Did they go to the president when the viking Labeled Release results ended up positive?

Well, according to the article you linked to, one experiment on the Viking missions indicated a possible presence of life; another indicated an absence of life. Furthermore, it is possible (again, according to the article you linked to) to explain the positive result as a false-positive. As such, the results were inconclusive, and to suggest that these indicate that there is life on Mars is crazy.

However, it's possible that the current results show the existence of organic compounds after all -- in other words, demonstrating that the negative Viking result was incorrect, and supporting the Viking LR data. Obviously, this would be a very important finding, and together the data from the two missions would provide strong evidence for the presence of life.

(And that, of course, is going to seriously upset the creationists. Although really I think it's pretty obvious that Mars was just a sandbox for God's first attempt at life ...)

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why the run around.

It's part of the funding game. It's hype. Mars's soil is too acidic to support life, but "life on Mars" captures the public's imagination and provides pressure for funding that gets real science done in the background.

For years we've been getting "indication of life on Mars" or "conditions that may indicate life on Mars" stories with no real results of life or its residue. We'll be getting them for years to come as life on Mars continues to be "indicated" or "strongly indicated(conditions strongly indicate)" but never actually found, because the soil chemistry of Mars is simply too acidic to support life.

This briefing is pure hype to keep Mars in public view to keep the money flowing. On the one hand I despise this kind of deception. On the other hand it does get some real science funded beneath the public's radar.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

raison d'Ãtre

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but why do we crave it?

Re:woo

[NemosomeN]

It's just a supposition, I'm not trying to build a working solution. The energy could be used indirectly as well, say using it on Mars to produce fuel (Like electrolyzing water to get hydrogen and oxygen, though obviously that would not be the method used).

Re:woo

[Shihar]

The idea that going to Mars is a good way to prevent mass extinction is flat out silly. There is absolutely NOTHING that could happen in a few hundred years to make Earth more inhabitable than Mars. Even the absolutely worst imagined meteorite strike would leave Earth a better place to live than Mars.

If fear over the survival of humanity is really the reason to go to space, I suggest looking MUCH closer to home. A simple undersea colony would weather any conceivable humanity ending disaster. As an added bonus, if you decide that your sea colony needs air/water/whatever, it is already there. You can go visit your family on the weekends. The idea that Mars is a better place to be is utterly absurd. It is a frigging near vacuum with no radiation shielding that is too cold and has minimal water. The only things that could make Earth that hostile to life would wipe out life in the entire solar system (a supernova too close to this solar system for instance), Mars included.

There might be reasons to toss humans into space other than proving how massive human balls are, but the survival of the species is not one of them.

Honestly, I think the whole thing is moot. The only value of space exploration is exploration. Outside of that, there is a slim chance that their exists some mineral off world that is collecting even after you add in the terrible cost of space travel. Otherwise, space travel is a waste. We are going to be uploaded into a computer long before we have anything but a token population in space.

Re:woo

[khallow]

Thank you. My take is that even if life is widespread, there's both a lot of places that don't have life, and no Terran species off of Earth. So the idea of humans spreading Terran life to other bodies in the Solar System still works since those bodies don't currently have any life. Second, humans can spread other life than just Earth-based life. If there were intelligent Martians, we could help them spread as well.

Re:woo

[khallow]

That's pretty shortsighted. Being underwater doesn't protect you from the "gray goo" scenarios. Underwater habitats are far easier to attack by a terrestrial power than a colony on Mars. I don't want to be wiped out in a nuclear war because someone has the theory that underwater habitats (or for that matter underground bunkers) are better than not being there. Some populations are particularly vulnerable. My guess is 6 or so well placed large nuclear weapons could take out 80% of the Jewish population. And a planet like Mars that is difficult to live on can still be a lot more inhabitable than a place where a competent, powerful enemy is trying to kill you.

Re:woo

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nowhere to go. Sad but true.

Re:woo

[nusuth]

There is absolutely NOTHING that could happen in a few hundred years to make Earth more inhabitable than Mars.

That is correct but irrelevant. We know in advance some of the challenges of colonizing Mars. We will know more about those challenges as we explore more of the planet. And finally we will work the remaining out once we are there. We have time to figure out how to survive on Mars. We have time. A planet wide catastrophe on Earth may leave Earth much more hospitable than Mars, however we might not have enough time to analyze and adjust to new conditions. Humanity may live but civilization could be destroyed. A Martian colony could be a very expensive backup for human civilization.

On a side note, I think building a Martian colony for backup is silly. It is much more important to have a separate human civilization to go on its own way. We are too homogenized on this planet after the advent of global transportation, media and communication. We need a fresh start somewhere. Mars or Moon are ideal for this. Once we figure out how to live in space and on other planets, the diversity of human cultures will increase dramatically. I think that should be the main goal.

Re:woo

[i_finally_got_an_acc]

I think you mean "Don't misunderestimate him."

Re:woo

[tehcyder]

Anyone on slashdot who knows the cost of taking one kilo of stuff from Mars to Earth?

No, but you'll get a lot of answers anyway, ranging from "a couple of cents" to "a bazillion dollars" each carefully worked out and superficially convincing until you expose the drooling inanity lurking beneath.

they found osama?

[Lilo-x]

damn, he hid good!!

Already?

[koma77]

Wow, are they already out of funds? That was fast.

Re:Already?

[ByteSlicer]

It's not that. The president gave NASA permission to drill and mine on Mars, but only if he was contacted at the first sign of oil. Invasion fleet launching in 5 4 3 2 1...

Right to (Kill) Life

[Doc Ruby]

If there's life, we can kill it. If there's been life for a long time, it's probably left an oily residue somewhere.

Prepare for the Space War I! Spreading democracy throughout the Solar System!

Re:Right to (Kill) Life

[Cylix]

Don't worry, I'm making the call to the Republican Space Rangers at this very moment!

Re:Right to (Kill) Life

[Anonymous Coward]

You have my lightsaber!

Amazing discovery

[Sebilrazen]

It's probably some form of Martian Lichen growing on one of the equipment arms that is kept above freezing by the waste heat from the nuclear batteries. They'll let us know that it's some sort of f'd up moss that has been causing some of the problems with doing their experiments.

Why don't you link to the original article?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/WH08018.xml&headline=White%20House%20Briefed%20On%20Potential%20For%20Mars%20Life&channel=space

Sheesh

[Davemania]

For a moment I though NASA discovered intelligent lifeforms in the white house.

Re:Sheesh

[gardyloo]

Barney and Miss Beazley?

Re:Sheesh

[dtml-try MyNick]

Unlike on Mars there isn't even potential for that in the white house.

Re:are the muslim?

[DoktorTomoe]

> Too bad Mars doesn't have oil.

Says who?

Colour me confused

[4D6963]

Heed my word, my brothers, for I have RTFA! It says that there's no way it has confirmed the presence of life right now or in the past on Mars. So what can be the big story they want to tell the President first?

Or if it's no bigger than "we found something that may or may not indicate the possibility that Mars may or may not have probably potentially hosted a form a life, maybe eventually?" then why the secrecy?

Re:Colour me confused

[Random BedHead Ed]

Heed my word, my brothers, for I have RTFA!

Mod parent down! Parent read the linked article and has an informed opinion. Alert! Alert!

Re:Colour me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I'm taking this to mean that they've found something like carbon chains on Mars. It's something that doesn't indicate life in itself, but that is necessary for there to be life.

Re:Colour me confused

[pz]

Duh, they've discovered OIL on Mars!

Re:Colour me confused

[g0bshiTe]

Or if it's no bigger than "we found something that may or may not indicate the possibility that Mars may or may not have probably potentially hosted a form a life, maybe eventually?" then why the secrecy?

They found alien turds maybe?

Re:Colour me confused

[lena_10326]

They said they found water and they said they found something else. I'm guessing the something else is a material that's associated with life on Earth: whether it be building block that life needs or the byproduct of biological processes.

My guess is the latter: complex organic molecules.

Re:Colour me confused

[gEvil (beta)]

Duh, they've discovered OIL on Mars!

I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke or if you were serious. Either way, it's been modded Insightful by someone. Oil would be too big of a discovery. If there were oil, then that would be definitive proof that Mars once did have organic life.

Re:Colour me confused

[ortholattice]

So what can be the big story they want to tell the President first?

They found an image of Jesus in one of the soil samples.

Re:Colour me confused

[lazy_playboy]

Insightful = funny + karma.

Re:Colour me confused

[Mprx]

Or alternatively, strong evidence for abiogenic petroleum origin.

Re:Colour me confused

[OriginalArlen]

MECA can't do that ("carbon chains" - are you thinking of amino acids?)

Re:Colour me confused

[balster neb]

Heed my word, my brothers, for I have RTFA! It says that there's no way it has confirmed the presence of life right now or in the past on Mars. So what can be the big story they want to tell the President first?

Or if it's no bigger than "we found something that may or may not indicate the possibility that Mars may or may not have probably potentially hosted a form a life, maybe eventually?" then why the secrecy?

Exactly my thoughts too.

One optimistic possibility: they have photographic evidence of apparent fossilised life forms.

Perhaps more likely they have found something else interesting in the soil that would justify a mission to bring a sample back to earth. I believe there is already such a mission in the works, but maybe they are seeking funding to make it high priority.

All this is pure speculation though.

Re:Colour me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Everyone knows that Oil is magic liquid placed by God under the earth 6000 years ago. Next you'll be telling me that Oil takes millions of years to form and that we evolved from apes.

* Hint: Look at who's in the White House

Re:Colour me confused

[ErkDemon]

from 2005:

Mars mission canceled after acrimonious White House briefing

Re:Colour me confused

[rhizome]

So what can be the big story they want to tell the President first?

I don't know what they briefed him on, but one issue that hangs over all of these Mars missions is that The Bible does not allow for the possibility of life anywhere else but Earth.

Re:Colour me confused

[Chris Burkhardt]

How do you know it wasn't inorganic life?

Re:Colour me confused

[satoshi1]

Didn't the Pope himself just recently state that it is possible that aliens could exist? That it is foolish to think that God created only one planet with life? (That second part may have been someone else, but they do go hand in hand).

Re:Colour me confused

[lessthanpi]

Something more provocative than water that needs to be explained to the president. Hmm... the discovery of ice?

Re:Colour me confused

[Pollardito]

So what can be the big story they want to tell the President first?

My bet is that they've spent half a day trying to explain to him that "it's not butter"

Re:Colour me confused

[Joe Tie.]

The bible can mean anything someone in power wants it to. Even if it outright said "Hey, this is a planet called earth, it's the only place there's life." it'd be labeled a metaphor the second life was found somewhere else.

Re:Colour me confused

[Jeff Archambeault]

Seems like another place to either export democracy to, or to fight potential terrorism. Either way, sounds like a place with oil, so its a potential new customer for Halliburton. Fast track to Mars!

Re:Colour me confused

[speedtux]

If there were oil, then that would be definitive proof that Mars once did have organic life.

Titan is covered in oil and natural gas, and there is no indication that that is of organic origin.

Re:Colour me confused

[4D6963]

Seems like another place to either export democracy to, or to fight potential terrorism. Either way, sounds like a place with oil, so its a potential new customer for Halliburton. Fast track to Mars!

-1, Scratched record

Re:Colour me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the ocean of ethane on Titan?

Re:Colour me confused

[h4rm0ny]

I also RTFA (and worse, I'm not ashamed of that), and they're pretty adamant it's not about the presence of life (past or present), so I wonder what it could be. If it's to do with the habitability of Mars, then the two candidates I can think of are: They've found a lot more water than expected. Enough that it would make a huge difference to the possibilities of colonising Mars. Or that they've found a useful fuel, e.g. a bumper crop of Uranium. I have no idea if the latter was even something they were equipped or trying to look for. I'm just listing the only things I can think of that have to do with habitability that would be worth getting a head start on.

Re:Colour me confused

[skelly33]

A couple guesses are in order. I think that NASA would feel compelled to alert the president before disclosure if the discovery is of something dangerous, valuable, or contentious (any others?).

Dangerous: the planet's surface regolith is laced with high concentrations of plutonium ready for the taking - retrieval could be a cost effective source for nuclear reactor fuel which could end the world's energy woes. But then there's weapons...

Valuable: the planet's surface appears red because of all the tiny rubies laying around, but some of them are bigger, and it's only a matter of time before the world economy is tanked as a result of overzealous ruby harvesting for the laser manufacturing industry.

Contentious: they have found organic compounds that distinctly resemble theoretical models of early life on Earth reinforcing that evolution through chemistry is the origin of life, not miraculous creation.

Anyone else care to take a shot with out references to Jimmy Hoffa or Saddam's WMDs?

Re:Colour me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

So what can be the big story they want to tell the President first?

They found Slartibartfast's signature.

Re:Colour me confused

[Tablizer]

Close: Walmart.
   

Re:Colour me confused

[gEvil (beta)]

Generally when people talk about oil, they are primarily referring to petroleum. Bundled along with this are various petroleum byproducts, such as methane and ethane. However, those gases can form in other ways, too. Simply because they are present in other places in our solar system doesn't mean that they are found with oil. I have yet to see any mention of petroleum found elsewhere. Any mention I have seen compares the quantities of these gases found elsewhere to the supplies of oil on Earth. They're not saying that oil is out there.

Re:Colour me confused

[AhtirTano]

1. Photoshop Jesus or Mary into dirt sample picture
2. Announce pilgrimages to said sample.
3. Raise enough to build interplanetary spacecraft.
4. ?
5. Profit!

Re:Colour me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if it's no bigger than "we found something that may or may not indicate the possibility that Mars may or may not have probably potentially hosted a form a life, maybe eventually?" then why the secrecy?

There is no secrecy about this. They are gradually preparing the public at large to accept the fact that there is other life in the universe. It's been hidden from us because the powers that be think that the public at large is not prepared to accept that fact.

You know, god explicitly said that we have the only life in the universe... therefore it would cause a crisis of faith... except for the fact that he didn't.

Be hopeful that it may happen in our lifetime. They are just waiting for the boomers to die off. Spoiled egotistical brats....

Re:Colour me confused

[MichaelSmith]

I also RTFA (and worse, I'm not ashamed of that), and they're pretty adamant it's not about the presence of life (past or present), so I wonder what it could be. If it's to do with the habitability of Mars, then the two candidates I can think of are: They've found a lot more water than expected.

The orbiters have already shown that mars has many metres of permafrost over most of its surface. Its hard to see how a lander could expand on that.

Re:Colour me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

They observed the same bacteria like structures found in the Martian meteorite discovered in the antarctic. Thus, proving that they came from Mars. But still not proving that they were ever alive.

Re:Colour me confused

[smchris]

I think some of us are a little short on trust this week. Remember, the EPA didn't write a report detailing the dire consequences of global warming, the one and only anthrax bomber committed suicide so the case is closed, and a Brig. General connected with the "sloppy" nuke transfer from Minot to the Middle East staging area also committed suicide, "presumably" with a handgun. (They aren't sure?)

That was this week in America. Next week? Stay tuned.

Re:Colour me confused

[speedtux]

You seem to mistakenly assume that the only hydrocarbons on Titan are methane and ethane. In fact, Titan is covered in heavier hydrocarbons, as are some other solar system bodies.

Re:Colour me confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I RTFA too and it's a MUCH more boring announcement than that, I'm afraid.

They want to announce that they have judged the habitability to have the mere potential for Mars to support life at some point. That's it. You might possibly be able to plant some form of life there if you wanted to.

In other words: The cosmos hasn't salted the ground of Mars somehow so nothing could ever possibly live there no matter what. Yipee. We're still going to have to do a lot of work to that planet...

Re:Colour me confused

[Mr Poo Poo]

So what can be the big story they want to tell the President first?

They found an image of Jesus in one of the soil samples.

Bet they found only bullshit

Re:Colour me confused

[roman_mir]

They said they found water and they said they found something else. I'm guessing the something else is a material that's associated with life on Earth: whether it be building block that life needs or the byproduct of biological processes.

- A Chinese convenience store?

Re:Colour me confused

[rhizome]

Hah, you probably right. In the scheme of "God created the heavens and the earth," Mars life could conceivably be considered to be part of "the heavens." Not being a chuchgoing man I have no idea how well the concept of heaven is explicated so as to exclude Mars' inclusion, but whatever.

Phoenix capabilities?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Does Phoenix have the ability to detect the building blocks of life in the water samples it's apparently found? Will it be able to detect the presence of complex molecules or even microbes within the water?

Re:Phoenix capabilities?

[OriginalArlen]

No, although theoretically if something swims past one of the microscopy instruments (there's an Atomic Force Microsoft as well as an optical instrument) that could be seen. However the Aviation Leak report specifically says their sources say "it's not life itself", but something to do with the behaviour of the soil in the presence of water - which is exactly what the "wet chemistry" aspect of MECA is about; adding pure water (carried from earth) to the samples to see what happens.

Re:Phoenix capabilities?

[modemuser]

Atomic Force Microsoft

Is that a hidden feature of Vista?

Re:Phoenix capabilities?

[Kaenneth]

Sea Monkeys?

Re:Phoenix capabilities?

[MichaelSmith]

there's an Atomic Force Microsoft as well as ...

Oh my god.

Re:Phoenix capabilities?

[chenjeru]

there's an Atomic Force Microsoft

Um, microscope? Or is this the new Windows Mobile OS for nanoscale devices?

Re:Phoenix capabilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Been bashing a company in Redmond so much that any word beginning with 'micro-' comes out as their name?

Re:Phoenix capabilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Atomic Force Microsoft? ^o^

Obama for Mars?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is life on Mars, will the Martians vote Democrat or Republican?

Re:Obama for Mars?

[twotailakitsune]

Here is a hint.

that seems rather consistent

[pha7boy]

they have always said that the existance of water would make the discovery of life more certain. if indeed they confirmed the existance of water, it seems to me very likely that they will also find at least the building blocks of life if not evidence that basic lifeforms once existed on Mars. It's still a long way from confirming the existance of advance life forms, and even a longer way from confirming the existance of civilization.

i would find it incredible if, after finding life, they did not find any traces of aminoacids or any other building blocks. frankly, i think not finding any evidence of life even though water existed on Mars would be a bigger discovery then finding that some single cell life existed once. but that's just me.

Re:that seems rather consistent

[globaljustin]

i think not finding any evidence of life even though water existed on Mars would be a bigger discovery then finding that some single cell life existed once. but that's just me

I think you're right... and I just think it's awesome. I'm 29 and I've had a fascination with Mars since I was about 5. I can remember when the best we could do is speculate that that those white ice cap looking formations at the poles *could* be ice. Then it was, 'it could be WATER ice.'

Right now we've got a robot on the surface with an analyzer that confirms that it is indeed H20.

Given what we know about life, the existence of water indicates that we will likely get some sort of evidence that there was life at some point.

Regarding TFA,

The other data not discussed openly yet are far more "provocative," Phoenix officials say.

They are being careful to say that this secret data is not definitive proof of life, but the fact that they think it's important enough to be considered before release to the public is interesting to say the least. I really don't see why they need to sit on the information, though.

Let's say they *did* discover evidence of Martian life. I don't think anyone would panic. I'm a Christian, and I'd love it if they found life out there. Doesn't affect my spiritual beliefs one bit, and everyone I know feels the same.

Just tell us for crying out loud

Re:that seems rather consistent

[alx5000]

Maybe a big discovery, but quite a big deception, too. I mean, extraterrestrial life, living or having lived millions of miles away from what we consider known.

While I still find your post interesting, I see the possibility of life on Mars as something a lot more exciting.

Re:that seems rather consistent

[OriginalArlen]

if indeed they confirmed the existance of water, it seems to me very likely that they will also find at least the building blocks of life

Why? We've known there was water (ice) on Mars for ages, just as we know the moons of the gas giants are giant balls of ice, and I'm pretty sure it's been observed in molecular clouds in deep space as well. As none of that's alive, what makes you think this would be any different?

Re:that seems rather consistent

[alexborges]

Well... because the news say that the water found is somehow related to the "potential for life".

Re:that seems rather consistent

[snowraver1]

Why? We've known there was water (ice) on Mars for ages, just as we know the moons of the gas giants are giant balls of ice, and I'm pretty sure it's been observed in molecular clouds in deep space as well. As none of that's alive, what makes you think this would be any different?

Well, we have not known that there is ice on mars, only speculated that it is likely. There is a big difference. The moons of the gas giants are hardly giant balls of ice, though many do contain "ice", although that ice may not be water. Regardless, how do you know that there is no life on one of these "giant balls of ice". Until we go and look, we don't know for sure.

Re:that seems rather consistent

[Anonymous Coward]

what's all the hubub about finding life on Mars. We've already established that bacteria can make the trip from one planet to another on rock which was ejected due to a planet-asteroid collision. So finding life on Mars still doesn't necessarily mean life is anywhere else in the universe or that life didn't start on earth.

Re:that seems rather consistent

[khallow]

Well, we have not known that there is ice on mars, only speculated that it is likely.

We're still speculating that it's likely there's ice on Mars. The previous observations were pretty solid. Sure the new ones verify what we already knew, but that wasn't the point. We now have a better idea of the prevalence of ice on Mars and where you can find it.

Re:that seems rather consistent

[OriginalArlen]

we have not known that there is ice on mars, only speculated that it is likely.

No, really, it's been known for years.

The moons of the gas giants are hardly giant balls of ice, though many do contain "ice", although that ice may not be water.

No.

Re:that seems rather consistent

[OriginalArlen]

What part of "potential for" don't you understand?

Not much life on Mars.

[Animats]

The Viking lander checked for microscopic life on Mars back in 1971. It wasn't a very sensitive test; the lander shot out some "sticky strings" and wound them back in. The lander had a unit which tested whether anything collected assimilated any of a few simple compounds. It didn't.

This established that Mars isn't teeming with microorganisms, like Earth. That doesn't eliminate all possibility of life, or something like it, but it did establish that there's no pervasive ecosystem there.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[AmericanInKiev]

Absent an ocean - which provides a gradient of temperatures and protection from Solar radiation for early unsophisticated life forms, it may be difficult for life to get started.

Sure we may be surprised by some new means of self-reproduction, but on our own planet - how many organisms got their start outside of the petri dish of vast body of water? AIK

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least, not in top one centimeter of regolith near the Viking lander, whose landing spot was specifically chosen for its uninterestingness (i.e., flatness).

You can't really take ONE test of this nature and extrapolate it to an entire planet. That's sorta like landing a probe in the Sahara desert and concluding that the entire Earth is a desolate wasteland based on the tests you conducted on a few grains of sand.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[jav1231]

Well, beyond that you can't necessarily say that conditions on Earth provide the blueprint for life on other planets. There may be organism on other planets that can breathe, say hydrogen for all we know.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[ColdWetDog]

This established that Mars isn't teeming with microorganisms, like Earth. That doesn't eliminate all possibility of life, or something like it, but it did establish that there's no pervasive ecosystem there.

Well, to be perfectly pedantic, it just decreased the possibility that there was no pervasive life in the region where the probe landed. It's not like Viking (or any other lander / probe) is getting any sort of reasonable sample size. Imagine if a Martian probe landed in the Bonneville Salt flats. Or New York City.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be organism on other planets that can breathe, say hydrogen for all we know.

A bit of biological trivia:

There are actually organisms on Earth that breathe hydrogen. They combine hydrogen and carbon dioxide to produce methane - hence the name "methanogens".

As an aside, the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is overwhelmingly likely to be of biological origin. That is, none of the early life on earth "breathed" oxygen.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[alexborges]

Or not breathe at all but use some other way to provide themselves power. :)

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[alexborges]

Well... i dont think we know about the origin of life enough to make that broad a statement.

What if its the other way arround? Barring some primitive bacteria or virii that does this or that, you cant have an atmosphere thick enough to give oceans....etc.

Im just saying, the cause of the event "life on earth" is still unknown.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[laura20]

Actually, if you did the same test in the Sahara, it would come back positive; a gram of Sahara soil contains maybe a billion bacteria. Bacteria *are* our ecosystem, in a lot of ways. In the water, in Antarctic ice, miles beneath the surface of the earth, they are in their millions.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[OriginalArlen]

A gram? Positive?

Thanks, I'm here all week.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[AhtirTano]

Very true.

However, Earth seems to have excellent conditions for life to thrive, allowing this diversity of bacteria in extreme places. Larger life forms do not thrive in so many extreme conditions. Mars does not appear to be great for life to thrive, as evidenced by the apparent lack of anything larger than bacteria. Who's to say that the conditions aren't so harsh that bacteria can only survive in really limited areas?

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[MichaelSmith]

Actually, if you did the same test in the Sahara, it would come back positive; a gram of Sahara soil contains maybe a billion bacteria. Bacteria *are* our ecosystem, in a lot of ways. In the water, in Antarctic ice, miles beneath the surface of the earth, they are in their millions.

In read somewhere that Viking would not have found life in typical Antarctic soil, though it is there in small quantities.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[acm]

The Viking lander [spherix.com] checked for microscopic life on Mars back in 1971.

The Viking 1 didn't launch until 1976. There must be a tear in the spacetime continuum!

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[jav1231]

Dude, I get it. Maybe I should have chosen a more distinctly dangerous element?

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[Shihar]

It is actually more like sending a probe to the antarctic during the winter and concluding that there is no life there. NASA actually did exactly this. What did they find? They found that they couldn't detect life in the antarctic with the instruments that they had.

Basically, I would look at it like this. If they find evidence of life, that is a pretty positive sign that life might be there (or have once been there). If they find nothing, well, it means almost nothing. Without a more thorough investigation of the planet, one or two negatives really means little. If there is life on Mars, it almost certainly isn't going to be easy to spot and it will exist in very low densities. Nothing short of a good exhaustive search is going to rule out life.

Re:Not much life on Mars.

[Sloppy]

The Viking lander checked for microscopic life on Mars back in 1971.

[pedant]Unfortunately, since the lander was on Earth at the time, it wasn't able to look very closely.[/pedant]

Potential life?

[NetSettler]

Finally an iron-clad reason to keep the Republicans from aborting Mars missions...

At least until we find actual life, when I guess they'll stop caring and start suggesting that such life invest in its own individual retirement plan.

Re:Potential life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally an iron-clad reason to keep the Republicans from aborting
Mars missions...

At least until we find actual life, when I guess
they'll stop caring and start suggesting that such life invest in its own
individual retirement plan.

Potential life or historic life=OIL!

Martians should expect freedom and democracy very soon ;)

Re:Potential life?

[4D6963]

Martians should expect freedom and democracy very soon ;)

Please grab a VHS of Zoolander, pull the tape out and hang yourself with it, cause none of you both are funny or original.

Short briefing

[Guppy06]

Why would Bush bother to listen to somebody talk about life on Mars when there's clearly no mention of it in Genesis?

Re:Short briefing

[nurb432]

While i realize you are just bush-bashing, that same statement holds true for a surprisingly large number of humans.

Re:Short briefing

[ScrewMaster]

While i realize you are just bush-bashing, that same statement holds true for a surprisingly large number of humans.

Yes ... that concerns me a lot more than the possibility of microbes on Mars.

Re:Short briefing

[g0bshiTe]

Genesis also neglects to mention life anywhere else but earth, doesn't mean it isn't out there.
The deepest part of the ocean floor has never been seen firsthand by human eyes without cameras, but it doesn't mean it's not there.

Re:Short briefing

[CRCulver]

Bush is a member of the Methodist Church, which is a mainline Protestant denomination that does not take a literal reading of Genesis. People tend to paint bush as some kind of Christian Fundamentalist, but that's just the company he keeps, not his own beliefs to judge from his denominational affiliation.

Re:Short briefing

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't studied the Bible much, have you.

It hints in several places of life, especially intelligent life, existing in other places besides our world.

It certainly doesn't rule out extra-terrestrial life forms.

So finding life on Mars would not contradict biblical teachings, but in fact actually reinforce the biblical accounting of things.

Re:Short briefing

[wonkavader]

What if the microbes on Mars have been confused for a long time that there's no mention of them in Genesis?

You think on that whole darn planet there isn't ONE Gideon bible?

Re:Short briefing

[DFENS619]

While I realize you are making a statement of your personal observations, the statement "Many people consider penguin feces a delicacy" has just as much validity.

Re:Short briefing

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory don't really count though...

"Have you ever really read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom." - Rev. Lovejoy

Re:Short briefing

[nurb432]

I think its safe to say its not just my personal observations, as most religions will have some difficulty if life is found elsewhere then their 'blessed' earth.

Re:Short briefing

[Guppy06]

"People tend to paint bush as some kind of Christian Fundamentalist,"

Probably because they form his political base and he tends to act, in an official capacity, in accordance with their beliefs and wishes.

"not his own beliefs to judge from his denominational affiliation."

He can believe whatever he wants, its his actions that we are to be concerned with.

Re:Short briefing

[J_Omega]

Similarly, the Roman Catholic Church basically accepts evolution now (albeit as god's plan to create us,) but I know R.C.s that keep the company of young-earthers -- Because they agree in thinking that the world is ~6500 yo. To judge on denominational affiliation wouldn't be accurate - however, birds of a feather...

I, for one, "feel" that Dubya is a fundamentalist young-earther, one who discounts Darwin and the like, who believes Jeebus talks to him directly, is in preparation for the rapture to occur within his lifetime, etc.

Can anyone post links to things Bush has actually said about his faith that might clear this up? (not that this is really the place for it.)

Re:Short briefing

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, I'm surprised he is listening to theories that could contradict him/usa/earth being the center of the universe. Well maybe he wants to send missionaries to the martians.

Re:Short briefing

[no1home]

Does it matter what Genesis says? The Pope's own astronomer says life is out there: Pope's Astronomer Insists Alien Life Would be Part of God's Creation (The Independent)

Re:Short briefing

[Sebilrazen]

I think its safe to say its not just my personal observations, as most religions will have some difficulty if life is found elsewhere then their 'blessed' earth.

They'll just rewrite their sacred texts again, and in 2 generations no one will be the wiser. They'll add an 's' to each instance of 'Earth' and 'earth' in Genesis and explain it as all celestial bodies and say it was some new translation. The sheeple with lap it up.

Re:Short briefing

[Anonymous Coward]

Genesis also neglects to mention life anywhere else but earth, doesn't mean it isn't out there.

Well now that depends on how literally you take the Bible, now doesn't it?

Re:Short briefing

[ErkDemon]

Ah, but that's only in the Earth version of the Bible. You should read it in the original Martian.

Re:Short briefing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the Vatican isn't against evolution either. Unfortunately it isn't crazy Catholics that are running the US government. It is crazy evangelicals who really don't like Catholics very much. Politically, the Vatican acknowledges global warming and evolution (on a multiple billion year time scale) while opposing things like preemptive wars and torture of detainees. This sets them in direct opposition to the crazy evangelicals who lap up this type of politics as well as the general Christian biases against homosexuals and women.

I'm not a fan of Catholicism, but I do recognize that Catholics aren't building Creation Museums, saying that radioactive dating is a myth, forcing intelligent design into schools, or denying that humans can have any effect whatsoever on the environment. Catholicism sucks, but at least Catholics have some attachment to reality and aren't supporting the new forms of xenophobia and racism.

Re:Short briefing

[RealGrouchy]

TFA states that the JPL team met with "the Bush Administration's Presidential Science Advisor's office", not with Bush himself, as implied in the Summary. The headline's reference to meeting with the "White House" is more accurate.

Or maybe that's just a technical detail, like how the President always "writes his own speeches".

- RG>

Re:Short briefing

[mikael]

I always wondered what the Bible meant by "blocking the fountains of the deep" - were they underwater hot geysers that were only recently found, or something different?

Re:Short briefing

[Trogre]

Which humans? Presumably you're not talking about fundamentalist Christians, who believe Genesis documents how the universe, and then life on Earth originated.

Re:Short briefing

[RodgerDodger]

Bush has indicated on several occasions that his religious beliefs are more fundamentalist than the standard that the Methodist Church holds up. The classic one is his support for ID & the "teach-the-controversy" campaign; the Methodist Church hierarchy has denounced ID on several occasions, and supports the teaching of evolution in school.

Now, maybe his stance is political, not religious - if so, that would reveal his true beliefs about religion.

Re:Short briefing

[Shihar]

I think that Bush sucks, but he isn't much of a religious fanatic. He had control of the executive branch and had allies in the legislative branch for 6 solid years. In that time, while he managed to break a lot of things, grow the size of the government to the point that socialist were left wondering WTF he was doing, and took a nice long piss on civil liberties, but he didn't do much to push the "religious" agenda.

Republicans pander to the religious right in verbiage, but have never had a president in the past half century that actually did anything for them. Hell, Regan, the guy who supposedly started the pandering doesn't mention abortion once in his autobiography.

I personally would expect to see the trend continue. McCain is going to verbally pander just enough to get them on board without alienating the Americans who don't believe in magic and then promptly ignore them for his presidency should he actually manage to beat Obama.

The Republican party should be dragged out back and shot, but it has nothing to do with the verbal pandering to the religious right. Their sin has been that they just flat out suck and can't even hold to their own basic ideals. When Bush entered office he promised to 1) not do nation building like Clinton did and 2) control the size of government. Yeah, we can all have a good long hard laugh over that one.

Re:Short briefing

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to you, stacking the Supreme Court with anti-abortion zealots

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111400720.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/sekulow_recalls.html

and going after porn with a vengeance by increasing Justice Department prosecutions and devoting FBI resources to porn DURING A TIME OF TERRORISM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bushs-war-on-porn-perve_b_7704.html

and viciously pushing to remove porn's sources of funding

http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/01/cz_sl_0501porn.html

and levying huge fines on outspoken media opponents for talking about innocuous things

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0408043fcc1.html

or for showing a tit

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/01/entertainment/main626925.shtml

or using swear words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article390108.ece

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/epps

isn't doing much to push the religious agenda?

How much more does it take to convince you that Bush, especially during the time he had no Congressional opposition, was actively doing things to help the religious zealots? Are you sure that YOU haven't been living on Mars the last seven years?

Re:Short briefing

[TerranFury]

Actually, Ronald Reagan really was a fundamentalist Christian. He believed all kinds of crazy stuff. Apparently, he was once given a very nice house, as a gift (!) --- and wouldn't move into it until he'd successfully lobbied to have the street numbering changed, simply because the address happened to be "666."

There's more than just that. There's a scary kind of millenarian eschatology running around. E.g., the Left Behind series of books.

It's also a reason for the religious right's interesting alliance with the Israeli lobby -- a link that didn't use to exist (historically, there has actually been anti-Semetism, so this is an interesting flip). They believe, quite literally, that Jews will be singled out at the end time as special and spared (at which time they will accept Jesus as their savior.)

Re:Short briefing

[Shihar]

So, to you, stacking the Supreme Court with anti-abortion zealots

Abortions or not, Bush would have stuck those same guys on Supreme Court. The reason why Bush's appointees would all universally strike down Roe vs Wad is because they all believe that the constitution means what it actually says and tend to avoid getting creative with their interpretations. The fact that they are anti-abortion has nothing to do with it.

Why? Roe vs Wad was a bad (legally speaking) decision. Seriously, every single legal scholar out there agrees that in terms of legality, Roe vs Wad was an extreme stretching of the constitution. The basic logic behind Roe vs Wad is that the constitution kinda-sorta implies a right to privacy, and that right to privacy kinda-sorta maybe could apply to being able to have an abortion... 'cause that is private.

Look, I am completely and 100% pro-choice, but I can see the difference between "anti-abortion judges" and judges that simply take a literal interpretation of the constitution.

Hey, the Democrats are about to sweep the government, maybe they will grow a pair, write a law making abortion legal, and toss this entire battle in the courts out of the window and stop relying on sketchy rulings from the Supreme Court to do their dirty work. I wouldn't hold your breath though. Democrats wouldn't want to piss off "them rural white voters".

I fully expect democrats to sweep government, pull their waist straps out a little, peek into their pants, and realize they don't have pair. If it is any consolation, neither do Republicans. Did you know that Bush went into office on a platform of NOT doing nation building like the Evil Clinton's and shrinking the size of government? Yeah. That is a good laugh.

Moral of the story? Politicians are spineless hacks. Expect nothing from them.

Re:Short briefing

[Anonymous Coward]

You said, "Seriously, every single legal scholar out there agrees that in terms of legality, Roe vs Wad was an extreme stretching of the constitution."

From two seconds on Google:

"Some 885 law professors argue the soundness of the original (Roe v. Wade) ruling."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DB1E3FF93AA35757C0A96F948260

Seriously, come back from Mars. Please. If you're as open minded as you profess to be, then it's time to drop these various fallacies that the conservatives have imprinted on your mind.

At least try to get your facts straight.

Re:Short briefing

[Shihar]

I spoke with a bit of hyperbole, in saying that "every single legal scholar", but once you take a step outside of partisan politics, the issue clears up very quickly. Roe vs Wade is defended on the grounds of what it did, not based upon the method of its ruling. Wikipedia has a nice little section on liberal criticism of Roe vs Wade. There is even a sizable portion that think that the basic idea behind Roe vs Wade is right (abortions should be okay), but that the ruling itself came about it in a crappy manner. Whatever the case, there can be absolutely NO argument made that Roe vs Wade comes from an originalist reading of constitution.

Please. If you're as open minded as you profess to be, then it's time to drop these various fallacies that the conservatives have imprinted on your mind.

I don't stew in my own beliefs. I don't mentally jerk off by reading and listening to only people that agree with me. I can think that abortion is a-okay (and I do), and still agree that magically pulling "abortions are protected by the constitution because of the due process clause" out my ass is a little silly. There is no contradiction here, only intellectual honesty.

If there is anything that makes politics truly nauseating these days it is how we stew in our own beliefs. Liberals listen to liberal radio, read liberal blogs, and read liberal books. Conservatives like wise jerk off to their conservative forms media.

The person who shows me a bookshelf full of books that back up their ideology doesn't impress me. They just prove that they have the wonderful ability to self brainwash. The person who shows me a bookshelf that is mixed with violently contradictory ideas and beliefs impresses me because it shows enough intellectual honesty to expose their beliefs to criticism. They might not buy it all, but at least they can hear and consider it.

Re:Short briefing

[Urkki]

I always wondered what the Bible meant by "blocking the fountains of the deep"

If it means anything specific, it probably means the passing of the last wave of the tsunami that likely was the origin of the Middle East food myths...

Re:are the muslim?

[neongrau]

NASA Scientist: Mr. President we have confirmed there is water in the martian soil!

Bush: What? The Martians have oil? Can we still extract the water to produce gasoiline?

If there is water......

[3seas]

.... they will come...

Please! Someone post a moldy Mars bar....

[Anonymous Coward]

so that we can see life on Mars!

First question by the President

[Puffy Director Pants]

How do we deport these Illegal Aliens?

Re:First question by the President

[ScrewMaster]

How do we deport these Illegal Aliens?

That's the second question, since right now they're not illegal, they're just alien. The first question would be, how do we prevent them from crossing the border?

so which is it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless there is a threat to national security there is really no excuse for briefing the president and not releasing the information.

So what is the deal here ? are the martians ready to invade or does someone deserve to be fired ?

Re:so which is it ?

[Myria]

Unless there is a threat to national security there is really no excuse for briefing the president and not releasing the information.

So what is the deal here ? are the martians ready to invade or does someone deserve to be fired ?

President Bush is the CEO of a large corporation called the Executive Branch. Failing to tell the CEO before a major announcement is bound to get you in trouble. I'm more worried about Mr. Bush quashing or modifying the announcement for religious compliance.

And we all know that someone does deserve to be fired; unfortunately, we have to wait until January for that.

Re:so which is it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

President Bush is the CEO of a large corporation called the Executive Branch.

Back in the Middle Ages, they had to make some governing decisions (e.g. whose head to chop off). At the time they focused on trying to find the best possible person to make the decision. In order to attract the best possible person they let them eat off gold plates and such. But it didn't work. For one thing, they attracted people who liked to eat off gold plates rather than people who were good at deciding whose head to chop of.

More fundamentally, though, it turns out that you don't want one guy at the top making the decisions - no matter how good that guy is. What you want is a system. For example, you want a system of laws and judges and lawyers and juries to decide whose head to chop off - rather than some lone king or dictator.

This was the fundamental idea behind the American Revolution that rejected the English monarchy. Unfortunately, Bush (and a great many Americans) seem to forget this. Bush's flaw is not that he is inadequate to make good decisions. Bush's flaw is that he makes the decisions himself rather than allowing the system to make the decisions.

Should NASA have to check with Bush before they announce their findings? No, there should be a system that decides how to announce important or controversial discoveries. This system should take input from a variety of experts, among others. Bush himself should only be involved if there is reason to suspect that the system is not functioning properly - and then only to repair the system (in accordance with the Constitution that specifies how the system is supposed to operate). On no account should Bush himself decide how to announce important or controversial NASA discoveries.

Re:so which is it ?

[ianm.phil]

"...wait until January..."

Impeachment proceedings are underway; there's nothing stopping you from contacting your congressional reps to encourage them to speed the process along.

Re:so which is it ?

[Spiked_Three]

After the 'earth at the center of the universe with the sun rotating around it' screw up, the Catholic Church is being a lot more cautious about what they say now. But, I have personally met many non-Catholic Christians who tell me the Bible says that there is no life in the universe except on Earth. Their world is about to crumble. I assume other religions based on the same God, eg; some Jews and Muslims are also about to be in for a shocker.

The ensuing mass panic (I hope) is indeed a threat to national security as the extremist try and save us from any such blasphemy. Of course having a supreme loony in the top job isn't going to help.

Re:so which is it ?

[TornCityVenz]

Acually the catholics in particular have been making a point of going on record not only that life may exist elsewhere, but that it probably does and that catholics should be ready to accept that. Here's a litte sample from Wired a bit back. http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/06/alien_religion?currentPage=all Most poeple I've met that belive in God view the exisitance of life elsewhere as further proof. After all God would have created it too.

Re:so which is it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The compatibility of Christianity with the notion of intelligent life existing elsewhere than on this rock is actually a very complex issue, and there are many facets to be investigated. Consider the following:

Man was, according to the biblical account, created in God's image, and put in charge of all creation. Now let's assume for a moment that this means that God created a bunch of sentient beings (avoiding the assumption that our mere physical form is necessarily what is meant by "God's image") on different planets and put them all in charge of their own little corner of the universe. That's all well and good, except that when God created these people, they were without sin. That would imply that if there were all these other sentient beings, they were sinless also. Now again, according the biblical account, the first people screwed things up by disobeying something God told them to avoid and as a direct result of that, through causes that evidently nobody alive can reason or fathom, this action somehow created a "curse" for lack of a better word that causes us to get old and eventually die. If there had been other intelligent beings elsewhere, why would God have not simply destroyed mankind and let the ones who continued to obey him live on? The notion that God did not destroy man simply because he loved them too much does not carry much weight because again, according to the biblical account God was later almost brought to the point of destroying humanity, and in fact the entire world, because of their sin... and it was only because of one man's (Noah) enduring faith in God that he reconsidered and merely destroyed all but this man and his family, also keeping enough of creation alive for it to endure as well. If other intelligent races had existed and not turned away from God, why would God have simply not destroyed those that rebelled against him, as this would evidently be God's modus operandi.

Further, consider that Jesus, supposedly spanning the infinite gulf between mankind and God was himself born here and lived as a man and died here, supposedly for the sins of all of mankind. But how, if he were born as a human, could he really be said to have died for the sins of other aliens? Are we to suggest that Jesus was reincarnated as an alien elsewhere, dying for each sentient race separately? This conflicts with the notion that Jesus's death would be sufficient to span the gulf separating God from *ANY* who might otherwise continue to dwell in sin.

There are numerous other issues to consider... but that's just a taste.

Suffice to say there are inevitable problems that would arise with a very large number of people who believe in God should the existence of sentient aliens ever be irrefutably confirmed.

Re:so which is it ?

[ignavus]

What religious compliance is involved here?

I don't know of any mainstream religious group that denies the possibility of life on Mars. And I cannot see why they would deny it. If they believe that God created life on earth (whether by slow evolution, as many Christians do outside the US, or by sudden miraculous appearance, as some Christians do), what is hard about believing that the same thing happened on Mars (and, for that fact, on quintillions of other planets in the universe)?

Obligatory

[Beau6183]

I for one welcome our microbe overlords.

Re:Obligatory

[Colz Grigor]

That would be... our microberlords, right?

Republicans Forever: +1 Despotic

[Anonymous Coward]

with a 10,000 year WaR AgAiNsT ALiEnS.

Re:Republicans Forever: +1 Despotic

[orkysoft]

Beware the alien, the mutant, the heretic...

Meanwhile...

[owlnation]

...The President of Mars was briefed about the improbability of Intelligent Life governing the Earth.

Oil?

[FlyingBishop]

They've said that this does not prove the existence of life... the only thing that I could think of is some sort of hydrocarbon that does not definitely come from life.

So chalk one up for abiotic theory?

cite?

[Yaur]

Do you have a source for that?

Re:cite?

[ScrewMaster]

He doesn't need a source ... he just said, "I believe." Therefore he was simply spouting an unsubstantiated opinion and expected it to be taken as such.

Re:cite?

[WhiteWolf666]

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/

The plan is to "delay" the constellation program in order to fund education. The claim is this is a "temporary delay", however, the way government funding works it is fairly likely that allocation would become permanent.

Re:cite?

[konohitowa]

Well, first he stated something as a fact. Then he said what he believed. And then he reached a tenuous conclusion based upon his statements.

How little we've changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

While i realize you are just bush-bashing, that same statement holds true for a surprisingly large number of humans.

Which shows how little humanity has progressed in the last 2,000 years. The human race is just a bunch of superstitious bald apes with better tools than their cousins with fur.

Re:How little we've changed.

[ColdWetDog]

While i realize you are just bush-bashing, that same statement holds true for a surprisingly large number of humans.

Which shows how little humanity has progressed in the last 2,000 years. The human race is just a bunch of superstitious bald apes with better tools than their cousins with fur.

Viva la differance!

Re:How little we've changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which shows how little humanity has progressed in the last 2,000 years.

2000 years is nothing in the scheme of things. Any meaningful step in the past has taken orders of magnitude longer. We may not have come as far as you would have liked, but compared to the progress made between, say, 1,000,000 BC and 9,998,000 BC, we're doing pretty well.

Re:How little we've changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

While i realize you are just bush-bashing, that same statement holds true for a surprisingly large number of humans.

Which shows how little humanity has progressed in the last 2,000 years. The human race is just a bunch of superstitious bald apes with better tools than their cousins with fur.

Well at least we stopped picking fleas and eating them......Well most of have.

Re:How little we've changed.

[Urkki]

The human race is just a bunch of superstitious bald apes with better tools than their cousins with fur.

Well, not quite. You make it sound like human race has been just given the tools and now has them. Let me say it better.

The human race is just a bunch of superstitious bald apes, no different from their cousins with fur, except human race has the ability to make better tools, and then use the first tools to make even better tools, and then talk about the tools they've made with each others and combine their knowledge to make even more excellent tools together, and then kill each other with their tools and take the tools of other to help them make their own tools even better again.

Oh Honey.......

[SkyDude]

Where is my tinfoil hat? I know I left it right near the computer. Did someone steal it???

I hope it's DNA (or RNA)

[wisebabo]

Since Phoenix can find organics and (I think) has a mass spectrometer perhaps it has found DNA? If they just found some carbon compounds that wouldn't seem that noteworthy, they find them everywhere in space (like carbonaceous meteorites). Of course if it's DNA (or RNA) then the possibility of contamination comes in (of course it if uses a totally different "code" that would make me believe at least it wasn't deliberate. A really sneaky scientist could put some DNA in there that didn't bear any resemblance to Earthian DNA thus leading one to believe it was martian. I say this in reference to some experiments where scientists are adding some new "letters" to the alphabet of amino acids that DNA codes for, the triplet codons in nature redundantly code for only 20 amino acids, not the 64 it could.)

Reminds me of the scene if "E.T." when during the capture of E.T. someone announces "he's got DNA!".

Of course this is completely idle wishful speculation on my part, the discovery is likely much more pedestrian. Feel free to ignore this post. ;)

Re:I hope it's DNA (or RNA)

[wisebabo]

Oops got tangled up in my own logic there. If it uses a totally different code then it is either (maybe) life-but-not-as-we-know-it-jim or a deliberate contamination. Of course I would NEVER expect (really no sarcasm) any scientist to do such a thing but having the nation/entire world launch a massive effort to investigate this newfound life on mars would be so funny if it were based on a hoax! I'm sure there are safeguards (right NASA?) to prevent the probes from being deliberately contaminated.

Really I'm bored here sitting late on a Saturday night in VIetnam so I have nothing better to do than to contribute(?) to slashdot.

Re:I hope it's DNA (or RNA)

[the eric conspiracy]

I would be surprised if a MS on a lander would have the capability of structural determination of DNA. Amino acids, though should be possible - I would hazard a guess that they have detected amino acids on Mars.

 

Re:I hope it's DNA (or RNA)

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hazard a guess that they have detected amino acids on Mars.

That sounds about right - although it could also be something like a biochemical precursor to amino acids. Personally, I'm not sure that such a discovery would really be all that significant.

Now, if they actually found some nucleic acids (the monomers that get linked together to form the polymer called DNA/RNA), well, that would be huge. While such a discovery would not imply that life had (or even could) exist on Mars, it would provide a plausible mechanism for early life to have developed on Earth. That is, a big unresolved question is where the nucleic acids for early life came from - so showing that they exist naturally in primitive environments (at reasonably high concentrations) would answer a big unresolved question.

Re:I hope it's DNA (or RNA)

[MichaelSmith]

...or a deliberate contamination. Of course I would NEVER expect (really no sarcasm) any scientist to do such a thing...

Yes, well it was never proven but a scientist apparently mailed anthrax spores to innocent people in 2001 so we can't assume they are all angels.

Re:I hope it's DNA (or RNA)

[CraftyJack]

According to the article that TFA is based on:

Sources say the new data do not indicate the discovery of existing or past life on Mars. Rather the data relate to habitability--the "potential" for Mars to support life--at the Phoenix arctic landing site, sources say.

Bear in mind that while AW&ST is generally a pretty decent source of news, they do have a weak spot for sensationalism.

Illudium Q-36

[hucke]

What they found is Illudium Q-36, a key component of the "Explosive Space Modulator". The president needed to be briefed so he could begin an invasion - it's an election year, after all, and Republican chances depend on a quest for fictional weapons of mass destruction.

EPA staff join the NASA rewriting team.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shortly after NASA officials briefed the White House, a number of key political appointees from EPA were detailed to NASA to rewrite the scientific results.

That's Easy

[Mateorabi]

They got some grainy camera shots of Decepticons right before they lost the signal.

will this also mean...

[CaptainNerdCave]

that mars must be protected at all costs because of its potential for life? (yes, a lightly veiled conservative/abortion joke)

Re:will this also mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

It means Mars should be protected at all costs from evil humans who might have just landed atop the one Marsian spotted dirt owl. (Yes, a lightly veiled environmentalist hippie liberal joke.)

Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only person who, quite honestly, is not that fascinated about this prospect? Yes, it would be exciting to some to discover life on other planets, but Mars just doesn't seem to be such a major leap...it's our neighbor. We quite obviously have life here on Earth (though some would question how intelligent it is ;), so it just doesn't seem to be such a monumental thing to discover some pre-microbes in the neighborhood. In fact, I somewhat expect it.

I think what we _really_ want to investigate is if there's some earth-like planet (and, possibly, earth-like life) outside our "comfort zone" -- I want to know if there's a more (or less) advanced civilization somewhere out there looking for us. That's the monumental discovery and the world-changing realization. Finding some bacteria on Mars doesn't really help answer that question at all, IMHO.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops forgot to log in...re-posting...

Re:Am I the only one?

[ceoyoyo]

On the contrary. We know of one place life originated. If we find a second, suddenly we know that life is almost certainly commonplace, and that intelligent life is almost certainly commonplace.

Right now we don't know anything because we've only got one data point.

Re:Am I the only one?

[cnettel]

Well, the GP has kind of a point. If we would find carbon-based life with DNA and the same mapping between triplet codons and amino acids as is found on Earth, the sensible conclusion would be that we still have not seen two instances of life originating, but only a single on that was capable of spreading to another planet. That is still interesting, but the amount of material that would leave a life-inhabited planet with enough velocity to ever get to another star system would be miniscule.

It would still be totally possible that the solar system would be the only inhabited system in the galaxy, or even the observable universe. If we find life on Mars, that is recognizable as such, but still radically different, THEN we are really talking.

Re:Am I the only one?

[alexborges]

Ah...

Baby Steps

Baby Steps

Re:Am I the only one?

[ColdWetDog]

Right now we don't know anything because we've only got one data point.

Hate to break this to you, but 2 data points in this humongous universe isn't going to be very significant. Interesting, sure. But let's not go making big graphs until we have some real data.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ceoyoyo]

Was it Asimov who said that the universe either does something not at all, once, or a nearly infinite number of times?

If, with our limited ability, we find two examples of life arising separately then, because the universe is so large, it is almost certain that life has arisen a great number of times.

If you randomly choose two people out of the six billion on Earth and they both have brown eyes, then you know with a great deal of certainty that a large number of people have brown eyes. Looking at it from the other side, there is a vanishingly small probability that you just happened to pick the only two people in the world with brown eyes.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, it would be MUCH more interesting if we find life with a clearly different origin, but even extraterrestrial life we strongly suspect originated on Earth would be revolutionary. It would mean that there are two places just in our solar system that can support life. You could still argue that the genesis of life is an extraordinarily rare event, but you could no longer claim that the conditions needed to support life were rare.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ColdWetDog]

I think you're right about the Asimov quote, but I'm not sure what dataset he was using to determine this ... IF we find life on Mars or strong evidence of previous life (a reasonable supposition, IMHO) it just means that conditions were favorable in a Sol type system between Earth and Martian orbits.

Does it make it more likely that life is a ubiquitous concept? Yes, but it's hardly strong evidence.

It still would be the most interesting and important bit of knowledge to come out of the space program, ever.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ceoyoyo]

We know there are plenty of sun-like stars and lots of planets around all kinds of stars. Finding a second origin of life is not only strong evidence, now that we've found out planets are commonplace, the frequency of the genesis of life is about the last big uncertainty.

Re:Am I the only one?

[terjeber]

2 data points in this humongous universe isn't going to be very significant

The funny thing is that you are exactly wrong. You have the data, and you explain to us that you have the data, but you interpret it exactly opposite of what it is.

Life in livable parts of the universe is either very rare or it is very common, it is unlikely that it is something in between. If it is rare, it is extremely rare since so few areas of the universe can support life. Even our own galaxy, which is a rather peaceful place, can only support organic life in a very limited zone in the outer spirals.

So, why are you exactly wrong? If life is rare, ss the data set grows (or the universe becomes more humongous) the chances of finding life on any random planet drops off fast. If you assume that the universe is close to infinite, the chance of finding life on any one planet is exactly zero. Yup. You got it. EXACTLY zero. Now, the universe isn't infinite, but it is damned close to it for practical purposes, so finding life on any random planet is as close to zero as you can get. For any practical math, it IS zero.

Now do you see the significance of finding life on Mars?

If life on Mars developed independently of life on Earth, then that proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that life is basically omnipresent where it is supported.

One data point says nothing. Two data points says everywhere.

Now, if life on Earth and Mars is linked, that tells us something else significant, namely that life is hardier than first thought. It means it can survive for a long period in a fairly hostile environment (vacuum, extreme radiation etc). That would also imply that life can exist in far more places than we thought.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ColdWetDog]

2 data points in this humongous universe isn't going to be very significant
The funny thing is that you are exactly wrong. You have the data, and you explain to us that you have the data, but you interpret it exactly opposite of what it is.

Im not usually 'exactly' wrong. I'm often 'completely' wrong (according to my wife anyway), but exactly is new. Anyhow, I would disagree with your assumption that life on earth + life on mars = life is common throughout the universe. Not saying it isn't but the data set we have doesn't strongly suggest that because conditions that are conducive to life outside our solar system may be extremely rare (not just conditions outside the planet).

In my casual rereading of the Drake Equation:

One piece of data which would have major impact on fl is the discovery of life on Mars or another planet or moon. If life were to be found on Mars which developed independently from life on Earth it would imply a higher value for fl. While this would improve the degrees of freedom from zero to one, there would remain a great deal of uncertainty on any estimate due to the small sample size, and the chance they are not really independent.

If the condition on which we're hoping happens (life on Mars turns out to be very likely, this just improves the chances of common abiogenesis but doesn't prove the point.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Urkki]

Except with Mars, if we find life there, there's a good chance it shares common origin with Earth life (based on similar DNA for example). In that case it doesn't really say much about likelyhood of life emerging...

Re:Am I the only one?

[terjeber]

In my casual rereading of the Drake Equation

The problem with the quote from the Drake Equation is that it doesn't stress enough the difference between an observation of life on Mars where the two life forms are very different.

If life formed on Mars independently from life on Earth that means that life in the Universe is extremely common or omnipresent in areas conducive to life. If it formed on Earth and Mars from the same source, then Mars is not a new data point in reality. The only thing we would learn from the second situation is that life is hardier than we thought.

Re:Am I the only one?

[MichaelSmith]

the amount of material that would leave a life-inhabited planet with enough velocity to ever get to another star system would be miniscule.

There was this thing recently about bacterial life living below the sea floor. It lives very slowly and uses very little oxygen. And there is a hell of a lot of it. I could imagine something like that making it to mars after a big impact.

Re:Am I the only one?

[thepotoo]

Or, it could just provide more evidence that life originates in space.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ceoyoyo]

If it does. That alone is interesting - it tells us that it's easier for life to ride around on rocks than it is for it to spontaneously arise.

Of course, it's more likely, both from a timeline and an orbital mechanics point of view, that life originated on Mars and travelled to Earth. So we'd be finding our distant ancestors, or at least descendants of them.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Urkki]

Yes, of course it would be tremendously interesting.

But I don't think it'd even show that life "travelling" around is more likely than life emerging, because even if life emerged at two places (like Earth and Mars), but then also "travelled", maybe at both directions, I think it's more than likely that one would wipe out the other.

I mean, just think of all the extinct classes of life on earth we know about, then extrapolate to include all the extinct classes we don't know about, especially from the early Archean. I think it'd be extremely unlikely that two competing, separate lineages of life could exist side by side long enough for both of them to leave fossiles.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Shihar]

I think the GPs point wasn't that if we saw life appear twice independently that the universe has life stuffed in every single nook and cranny, just that because the universe is so damn big it means that there is a ton of life out there, even if most of the universe is dead.

Basically, if you boil down Drake's equation, you start with an absurd number of stars. The next pieces of Drake's equation all deal with finding the "right" stars with the "right" planets. We have very good reason to believe that all of these conditions for finding the "right" planet are non-zero numbers. We know that there are lots of planets out there, that some have Earth like orbits, and we are getting very close to detecting ones with Earth like mass (and suspect strongly that they exist).

What makes Drake's equation interesting, is that if you drop a non-zero number into all of the assumptions, no matter how small that non-zero number is, you get billions and billions of life harboring planets. 0.000001% of a really frigging big number is still a really big number.

The big show stopping "zero" that Drake's equation always runs into is the chance that life can spontaniously arise. We know that the conditions for life to appear are very much non-zero, but life actually appearing is much more tricky. You could reasonably believe that life on Earth was a one a universe fluke. Showing that it isn't a once in a universe fluke makes the rest of Drake's equation spit out billions and billions of life bearing planets. They might be too far away to reach, and we might never see them, but they would exist.

Re:Am I the only one?

[solferino]

On the contrary. We know of one place life originated.

We know of no such thing. Many scientists assume that life originated on Earth. There is no proof. Unless you know something I don't?

Re:Am I the only one?

[solferino]

On the contrary. We know of one place life originated.

We know of no such thing. Many scientists assume that life originated on Earth. There is no proof. Unless you know something I don't?

Re:Am I the only one?

[ceoyoyo]

We know of one place life originated. As in, we know there was at least one. We don't necessarily know where it was.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would still be totally possible that the solar system would be the only inhabited system in the galaxy, or even the observable universe."

I find that statement extremely implausible.

"but only a single on that was capable of spreading to another planet."

Impossible. At least, impossible for life from prehistoric earth.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's an infinite universe. That's big. Really big. Big enough that we, as mere humans, can't even really wrap our brains around the concept. In a universe that big, it sort of has to happen often, and in lots of different ways. I do agree though that to find it right next door would argue very strongly for a HUGE level of pervasiveness by this logic.

Re:Am I the only one?

[solferino]

OK, I assumed you were making the strong case that life originated on Earth. Instead you were making, or have retreated to making, the weaker case that life originated somewhere. But even that cannot be proved.

Even if you accept the hypothesis of the Big Bang origin of the universe, you cannot prove that life did not exist in the universe from the very first millisecond. And thus life would always have existed.

We know of one place that life exists. We do not know, and probably can never know, one place of origin of life, even if there was such an event.

Missed opportunity

[MadFarmAnimalz]

This news comes just as the Thermal and Evolved Gas Analyzer (TEGA)

If they'd just spent a little more time thinking it through, they could probably have come up with something more appropriate like Field Aerosol Recognition Thermal Sensing Nonionic Interference Failtested Frankly Erotic Robot. The resulting acronym would, I am sure, have been more memorable.

Re:Missed opportunity

[pitchpipe]

How about: Analyzing Soil Samples, Listing Integrated Colors in K-band Evolved Regions.

Am I the only one?

[nlh]

Am I the only person who, quite honestly, is not that fascinated about this prospect? Yes, it would be exciting to some to discover life on other planets, but Mars just doesn't seem to be such a major leap...it's our neighbor. We quite obviously have life here on Earth (though some would question how intelligent it is ;), so it just doesn't seem to be such a monumental thing to discover some pre-microbes in the neighborhood. In fact, I somewhat expect it.

I think what we _really_ want to investigate is if there's some earth-like planet (and, possibly, earth-like life) outside our "comfort zone" -- I want to know if there's a more (or less) advanced civilization somewhere out there looking for us. That's the monumental discovery and the world-changing realization. Finding some bacteria on Mars doesn't really help answer that question at all, IMHO.

I'd be more amazed...

[toby]

If they discovered intelligent life in the White House.

Re:I'd be more amazed...

[Anonymous Coward]

more intelligent than you, i'm sure.

NASA Tried To Brief Nancy Pelosi

[strelitsa]

Hmmm, looks like the lights are off at work. Lets try her cell.

The mobile customer you are trying to reach ... is no longer in this service area. Press 1 ... to page this number. Press pound ... to (crackle) a (crackle).

1

The mobile customer you are trying to reach ... does not accept pages. Press star to hear the previous menu. Press 1 ... to page this number. Press pound ... to leave a message.

*

Press 1 ... to page this number. Press (crackle) ... to leave a message.

#

The mobile customer you are trying to reach ... has not configured their voice mail to (crackle). Good Bye!

Gore will be dancing

[the eric conspiracy]

The found evidence of Martian Global Warming.

Re:Gore will be dancing

[timmarhy]

actually they already know other planets in our solar system have been warming. i guess we must still be responsible in some way.

Re:Gore will be dancing

[luzr]

Of course we are responsible. All these probes circling around and landing on Mars... Think about the huge amounts of fuel spent. No wonder Mars is warming.

Speculation Time...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if this news story is true and the president has been briefed, then what could the discovery be?

Well, if NASA had found bacteria would they feel the need to brief the president first? Unlikely. It would be pretty easy to just give a press conference and go from there.

And if NASA discovered say a monolith or something unambiguously artificial would they brief the president? Probably, but you would never hear about it.

So it's probably something between those two possibilities. And my guess is that they probably discovered small fossils indicating past life.

Officially means nothing now

[Ultimate Statement]

I would be indeed please me if my government had the common sense to acknowledge that something ET is flying over our heads, causing disturbances in air traffic control (what? a disc-like object is hovering over the tarmac? O`Hare airport Nov. 7 2006), and seen by thousands of people. It is as if the current waves of sighting were there to force us awareness of their presence.

The matter of UFO`s was officially closed after blue book, but who, in his right mind now, believes our government anymore? And they say hooray! we found water in mars, or potential for life as if that was an ephifany? give me a break.

We need more people who is willing to go all the way (for ex. the cracker Gary McKinnon) and get the information through as many (legal) means as possible. Let`s get serious about the end of secrecy. Governments, open your archives, stop being so ridicule, it is all right now, it is 2008, and you do not have much time left. The 08-08-08 is the day to send our best wishes that this information may find its way out to the street. For good.

Re:Officially means nothing now

[alexborges]

Heh...

Spooky.

Re:Officially means nothing now

[Legion303]

"The 08-08-08 is the day to send our best wishes that this information may find its way out to the street. For good."

Oh noez! Random strings of made-up numbers that converge to resemble one another! Dumb fuck.

Re:Officially means nothing now

[Legion303]

Oooh, tough break. Better luck on 09/09/09.

After 2012, do you numerology kooks need to switch to a Mayan calendar or what?

Re:2008 just called...

[spud603]

ummm... Bush is still in office, and still causing damage.
Impeaching the bastard would do wonders for our political system, regardless of how much time he's got left.

False flag alien encounter

[Anonymous Coward]

We're expecting a false flag alien encounter since we've slowly been bumped up to accepting potential alien arrivals. Seti@Home is probably a black project too.

Organic molecules

[damburger]

My bet is on some kind of organic molecules, perhaps amino acids. Certainly interesting, probably not of interest to the non-scientist. Bush is probably not enjoying his briefing.

Re:Organic molecules

[BeerDiablo]

Maybe they're using hand puppets to mix things up?

Re:Organic molecules

[Tablizer]

My bet is on some kind of organic molecules, perhaps amino acids. Certainly interesting, probably not of interest to the non-scientist. Bush is probably not enjoying his briefing.

"All this talk uv organic molecules is making me hungry for tacos. I'm gittin' up to eat. Lit me know when they find tacos on Mars."
       

Re:Organic molecules

[Trogre]

Heh heh Tacos rule.

Re:Organic molecules

[ZeroFactorial]

What are the odds that *we* brought life to Mars?

Perhaps some sort of bacteria or other microorganism capable of surviving harsh conditions managed to survive on the journey from earth to mars.

Whether there was life on Mars or not before, perhaps there is now because of us?

Maybe they found oil

[Anonymous Coward]

What else would he care about?

"I say we take off.."

[RevWaldo]

"..and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
"Now, Dick, take it easy. After all, what would Jesus do? (turns to empty chair) Well, Jesus, what should we do?"

Finally we know...

[gros calice]

The face on mars is a real man!

http://www.coverups.com/mars.htm

Re:2008 just called...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Moreover, those thuggish minions with which he stacked the supreme court will be there fore DECADES. And the damage they will continue to do, during that time, will most probably take GENERATIONS to undo.

So yeah, I think it will be quite appropriate to loath bush and company for the damage they did and are doing to the contry for many MANY years to come.

cya,
john

Republican Space Rangers

[J_Omega]

When did Blackwater get the upgrades?

Re:2008 just called...

[lastchance_000]

Um...it's still 2008, and Bush is still president. He's part of the news story. And it's damn odd that scientific results have to be 'discussed' with him before they're released.

he's still in office torturing people

[wisebabo]

he's still in office and defending things like torture

take a look at this book review

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/books/review/Brinkley-t.html?ref=review

still don't want to bash Bush?

Re:he's still in office torturing people

[pallmall1]

he's still in office and defending things like torture

take a look at this book review

Are you talking about this book?

Re:2008 just called...

[Lemmy Caution]

Bush has been described by Republicans as one of the worst presidents of history. I protested against certain Clinton policies, but Bush's exercise of "executive privilege" to make himself completely unaccountable, the hyper-politicization of the Justice department, the squandering of international goodwill, the profound anti-intellectualism, and so on.

Bush isn't even the past yet.

I'm more than willing to go Godwin on you. Don't make me go Godwin. Unlike Carter or Reagan or Clinton or Bush I, I think GW Bush should stand as an exemplar of a bad presidency, to serve as a warning to the rest of us for years to come.

Martian pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be the first extra terrestrial cum shot?

Idiots - It's potential for life

[Anonymous Coward]

...as in, potential for us to support life on Mars.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:2008 just called...

[atriusofbricia]

Moreover, those thuggish minions with which he stacked the supreme court will be there fore DECADES. And the damage they will continue to do, during that time, will most probably take GENERATIONS to undo.

So yeah, I think it will be quite appropriate to loath bush and company for the damage they did and are doing to the contry for many MANY years to come.

cya, john

Thuggish minions? Care to provide examples?

Re:2008 just called...

[drcagn]

Bush is still the present, and his policies will have an effect on America (and the world) for many years to come. Why would I just forget about him?

Re:2008 just called...

[novafluxx]

Thank you, I too have grown tired of it. Can't anyone come up with any new material?

Re:2008 just called...

[ColdWetDog]

And it's damn odd that scientific results have to be 'discussed' with him before they're released.

Not at all. They're being kind and considerate. They know it's going to take him a lot longer to figure out than most people. It is really embarrassing when the "leader" of the "free world" doesn't get it.

Re:2008 just called...

[pitchpipe]

2008 just called...[...]and all some people can do is keep hating the past.

2048 just called, and they want their time machine back. Also, I just hung up the phone with 1987 and they want their fucking stupid joke back.

Re:2008 just called...

[Teun]

Um...it's still 2008, and Bush is still president. He's part of the news story. And it's damn odd that scientific results have to be 'discussed' with him before they're released.

I don't see it as odd at all, Bush still hopes his party can stay in power, for this he depends heavily on these delusioned ID and Creationist 'Christians'. And before such news of life off of Earth broke these guys will need to have a new twist available to adapt their theory, sorry, fact book.

Universal truth?

[Smivs]

If Mars is anything like here, they probably found some trash dumped....an old tin can, an 'Earth Bar' wrapper............

Politics on slashdot...

[iamapizza]

Should this article really have been posted? It appears to be more of a commentary on how surprising it is that a president that we perceive to be completely incompetent is taking an interest in something that he wouldn't normally do.

It's like reading news about dogs that perform or display almost-human like behavior or reading mainstream-media news article about how something that we geeks take for granted on 'teh internets' is all "weird and wonderful" to them.

Even the article has very little actual content, it's mostly speculation.

Re:Politics on slashdot...

[OolimPhon]

You must be new here.

Re:Politics on slashdot...

[tgrigsby]

It's like reading news about dogs that perform brain surgery or reading a mainstream-media news article about how something that we geeks think is weird and wonderful is old news to Joe Public.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

2008 just called ... and it's for YOU.

(Apples and oranges)

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up? Get Stuffed!

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevertheless he is responsible for the death of thoundsands of people and a war criminal.

Then the presidential cabinet convened

[LM741N]

to discuss ways to combat Martian terrorism. President Bush said "The War on Martian Terrorism" has just begun. Billions will be needed for various agencies to fight against the interplanetary menace.

FF To Mid-August NASA Brief:

[Anonymous Coward]

With great sadness, we regret to inform the world while traces of water have been discovered, no trace of oil has been found.
The liberation of Mars has been canceled.

In other news, the presence of oil has been confirmed in Tehran.

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[alexborges]

Have a cow man.

The heading sayz bush is being briefed. So it does have to do with him.

Having said that, thanks for the oportunity you give me to vocally reaffirm any readers that bush is an asshole and yes, is probably not enjoying this meeting with scientists because of that.

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Its amazing that people's hatred for Bush has to infect every story. /. has become a political blog and should seek funding from moveon.org. There is a section called "politics" and spilling your political viewpoints would be a little more appropriate there. If a story appears in a different section it would be great if we were able to read intelligent discussion on that topic.

You did realize the story involves the Mr. Bush?
You do realize that there is a reason for such scorn?
You realize Mr.Bush's contempt for science?
You did realize that this is "stuff that MATTERS"?

Thought so.

Something in the Mud

[ErkDemon]

Or a hatch door ...

Okay, that gives away the ending of the final episode of "Lost" ...

1976, actually.

[JoeGee]

Other than that, your post is accurate.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the Pope already said he didn't see a conflict between Catholicism and the idea of extraterrestrial life. I don't think it's really an issue at all with Protestants -- at least no differently than the general population.

As a Christian myself, I certainly take no issue with the idea, and as a passionately curious person, I hope for it.

I never saw a passage in the Bible that said "God created life only on Earth. All those other planets up there are void of life. Don't bother looking."

Did you have anything specific in mind that would have to be "adapted" in the "fact book", or are you just being an asshat?

Re:2008 just called...

[CrazedWalrus]

I'm more than willing to go Godwin on you. Don't make me go Godwin.

I think you just meta-Godwinned the thread. Nice twist. :-)

Apparently a coin was unmarsed

[Sebilrazen]

that read "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

nasa informs bush

[J3rryken]

if nasa would find oil on mars bush goes at war with the martians

It is a ploy by NASA to send people to MARS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Mr Bush.

We found weapons of mass destruction.

Can we invade?

C u me o n ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They May Be Good Or Bad, Just You Hope They WILL NOT BE Them Green Little Mem From Mars Who Knonck AT YOU DOOR And Bite Off Your Heads...

Pseudulous Elasgicus

Re:2008 just called...

[j01123]

And it's damn odd that scientific results have to be 'discussed' with him before they're released.

They wanted to make sure that he'd support funding for the study of life on Mars. Unfortunately, he's decided to give all the research grants to Liberty University so that they can figure out the day of genesis on which god created Martian life.

Sample return mission?

[mpthompson]

I wonder if the findings might be provocative enough to fast-track a Mars sample return mission.

I envision another lander being dispatched to the Phoenix landing site where a Sojourner sized rover collects a few kilograms of surface material. There would be minimal instrumentation, just enough to determine what samples might be the most interesting. That material is then launched back to Earth for complete analysis.

Thinking further, if we thought we had the potential to bring alien biological back to Earth, would the prudent thing be to analyze the samples on the ISS to reduce the risk of contamination of our biosphere? Of course, I believe getting the samples to the ISS would be much harder than simple soft landing them on the Earth using an heatshield/parachute.

It's fun to think about, but the overwhelming chances are the announcement will be much more mundane.

Re:Sample return mission?

[R3d M3rcury]

Here's another entertaining question:

So we want to bring back life from Mars. Now, wouldn't it be necessary to make sure that said life actually survives the trip?

The problem is that I don't think we will know that much about how that life survives. What does it eat? What does it need to breath? What temperature does it need to be comfortable? Etcetera, etcetera.

I think it's much trickier than a simple "soil return" mission.

Re:Sample return mission?

[timmarhy]

it doesn't matter if it lives. even returning dead proof of life from another planet would be a revelation.

Re:2008 just called...

[Original Replica]

Impeaching the bastard would do wonders for our political system, regardless of how much time he's got left.

That is a point that is too overlooked these days. In order to restore the checks and balances, Bush and Cheney much be impeached before leaving office. Failure to do so sets the precedent that a sitting president can ignore limits to his power and order his staff to ignore Congressional subpoenas And after do so, that President can still complete his term of office. Allowing Bush and Cheney to go impeached finishes the process of turning the Constitution into "just a g*d dammed piece of paper" Bush hating isn't just about the temporary damages that occur during his presidency, but the lasting damages, like the destruction done to our rights and our Constitution. Bush hating is about the amount of freedoms we have lost because of his presidency and how it is very difficult to regain lost freedoms without bloodshed.

Dammit, just get it over with

[Anonymous Coward]

There's life "out there" even intelligent life. Life on Mars and elsewhere, just WAY too many people have seen what can most likely only be alien craft. This has gone beyond a joke. Many here aren't old enough to remember it live, but it used to be common, I mean very common, to have mainstream news reports about UFO sightings and it wasn't hooted at. Tons of both axis and allied airmen reported seeing "foo fighters" and other sorts of craft during WW2, which were in no way human made craft. Both sides thought the other side had some weapon. At the end of the war, notes compared, shazzam, everyone concerned had been thinking the same thing so that left them with what? Frikkin alien craft/probes, whatever the hell you want to call it. They got a big wakeup call in 47 and made a decision then to cover it up a day later because they just didn't know what the hell it was and were afraid it was another advanced weapons system, a threat, but this one potentially huge because they actually got some little dudes dead with it, then later on they kept the coverup going because of all the social strife that would ensue if they admitted that there were civilizations just way more advanced than ours, like maybe we were like insects to them, that advanced, and even with our best tech, we would have been helpless to do much about it if they ever went very hostile. Plus, all the ultra orthodox religious nutjobs might not have been able to take the news of it and there could have been widescale in the hundreds of millions or even billions of people rioting over it. They just didn't know what would happen if they let the news out officially so they made a serious high level decision to not chance it. And then went on a huge propoganda campaign to dismiss it and label people who reported sightings as all being kooks or have it easily explained away. Freeking nonsense! I saw one when I was a kid and dammit again, it wasn't anything but a freaking flying saucer/ufo/some sort of intelligently controlled craft, and it was just centuries or millenia away from anything we have flying now in its flight characteristics, it wasn't a stupid chinese lantern or weather baloon or the planet Venus, we saw it cleanly and clearly from less than 100 yards away. It could fly slow, hover, and then accelerate to mach ludicrous speeds, all completely silent with no apparent exhaust. I saw it do all of that.

And this coverup has now gone on so long they just kept at it from inertia. They will admit to the martian microbes because it is "small", society now can handle the news better, and eventually they will admit to all of it, but it will still take some years. Astronaut Mitchell is getting old now, what in the hell does he got to lose from saying the same thing? Or gain for that matter. They are going to arrest him for violating some secret law and order passed 60 years ago? I know people in all three branches of the military plus civil aviation pilots who have all told me of very credible sightings, and all of them said that if it got out their careers were in the shitter immediately. All conversations off the record of course. One I had to wait to go out into a boat on the freaking ocean before he would talk to me, and his job was monitoring the boundary at space with our best high tech gear. They call them fast walkers or fast movers and are absolutely trained to do nothing about it at all. Another guy I know was on one of those hospital ships off of nam back in the war, they had a sighting where anyone who was on deck saw one close up for a long time, clear daylight, all of them, everyone on that ship got ordered to STFU about it or else. That particular sighting is out on the net in some references, I heard it directly second hand a very short time after it happened, then decades later see more reports of it leaked out.

Now some of those types of folks have come clean in the disclosure project, and they maintain they have a lot more, as soon as congress passes a law that releases them from previous orders to not talk about it. The

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[veeoh]

because I didn't bloody see that link obviously.

Keeping secrets from your employers?

[FromTheAir]

Is this ethical? Government doesn't pay for or own anything, the citizens do. Individudals in government only have the authority we collectively grant them.

Re:2008 just called...

[Original Replica]

GW Bush should stand as an exemplar of a bad presidency, to serve as a warning to the rest of us for years to come.

Unless he finishes his term and retires in peace and comfort, then he is a template for how a President can act like a dictator and get away with it.

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[Anonymous Coward]

you've got to be kidding. With the subject of "Science" and the "Bush White House" in the same sentence who could possibly resist? It would be like having "Blue Dress/Dry Cleaners" and "Clinton White House" in the same sentence.

Of course while Monica Lewinsky episode merely showed us our prior president's lack of personal discretion, Bush's actions shows his lack of reason, intelligence, logic, lack of understanding of the rudiments of the scientific method...

Not Necessarily

[Derosian]

First of all if both of those were true it would be a very bad thing, as we haven't encountered intelligent life yet it stands to reason that there is something out there that is stopping intelligent life from spreading and mapping the stars and encountering us. Thus for both these things to be commonplace means we would have yet to encounter whatever this great tribulation is. If instead one of these two things are not common then we have already passed a great hurdle and eventually will be the race to colonize our galaxy and eventually the universe. For more information about this type of thinking you would look up works and articles by Frank Drake or Carl Sagan, also any articles related to the Fermi paradox are rather interesting.

Re:Not Necessarily

[ceoyoyo]

Interesting, but far from as conclusive as you imply. There are LOTS of reasons why we haven't been visited by intelligent ETs besides the ideas that they either don't exist or something is eating them.

Re:Not Necessarily

[terjeber]

as we haven't encountered intelligent life yet it stands to reason that there is something out there that is stopping intelligent life from spreading and mapping the stars and encountering us

If life came to be on Mars independently we know for sure that life as such is commonplace in the universe. It is probably omnipresent in systems that supports it. Thus far he is right. The problem is with intelligent life. Intelligent life takes a while to develop. Even if a system supports life it might not support it for long enough to intelligent life to come in to place. A black hole in the center of the galaxy that hiccups every few million years can prevent that, but would still allow for non-intelligent life to be crated over and over and over and over...

It may even be that intelligent life is quite commonplace, but that no galaxies are stable for long enough for this intelligent life to develop to the point of interstellar travel. Time's a bitch.

I wouldn't be surprised if the following was a reasonable description of the universe

• Life is rare as a rule. Interstellar space doesn't support it, and the majority of galactic real-estate is extremely hostile to life.
• Life as such in the zones of galaxies that supports life, like the outer areas of the arms of spiral galaxies, is not only commonplace, it is omnipresent. Everywhere it can, life arises.
• Complex life forms are also commonplace, less so than simple life forms obviously. So, there are cows, sheep and chimps all over the place.
• Intelligent life requires significant more stability, even the Earth only barely had it, man was almost wiped out on a couple of occasions. Intelligent life is therefore quite rare.
• Galaxies and galactic real-estate that supports life for long enough to support life until it becomes inter stellar are very, very rare. I doubt even our own galaxy is that stable, but we'll see (but we might not notice, a big gamma-ray bust would be instantly fatal and we might never see it coming). So, interstellar travel is rare enough that even galaxies teeming with intelligent life do not have interstellar travel.
• Galactic neighborhoods stable enough for a species to develop intergalactic travel might not exist or they are so rare as the chance for it to develop is exactly zero. So,

In short, life may be omnipresent and intelligent life may be very common, it still doesn't mean that interstellar travel is. We may have a lot of potential friends out there, but may never meet them.

Re:Not Necessarily

[denton420]

In light of the discussion of having two data points to infer an absolute about the nature of the galaxy...

I must say that the deductive reasoning put into use by terjeber does away with the need for such a pair of data points all together.

To add to the point of life being omnipresent we can look to our own limited experience on earth.If we have learned anything from studying the harshest climates on earth (relatively speaking) it is that life will flourish anywhere that there is matter (and the universe is not short on that) for it to arise from. In general, nothing lasts but nothing is lost.

To me, life in the galaxy is just common sense. I had never heard of quote such as Asimov on the nature of the universe (Once, never, or infinity) but simply found this to be common sense when one considers the size of the galaxy and its basic properties.

Ultimately, I feel like the discovery of life on Mars would be most useful in convincing the religious fanatics among us that life exists elsewhere in the universe and they can start to get over themselves as the single most important being in the universe. Which would be a breath of fresh air, lemme tell ya!

Maybe then, we can take steps towards preventing humanity from suffering the fate of the countless races that came before us, eradication.

Re:Not Necessarily

[terjeber]

I must say that the deductive reasoning put into use by terjeber does away with the need for such a pair of data points all together.

I'd love to see the reasoning behind this.

Maybe then, we can take steps towards preventing humanity from suffering the fate of the countless races that came before us, eradication.

Unlikely. The most likely cause of life eradication is a massive astronomica event. I am not talking about tiny stuff like a huge asteroid slamming into us while we are looking in the wrong direction, that's a puny little thing we can actually deal with. I am thinking more about a big black hole in the middle of our galaxy currently relatively nice, but not forever. If it starts feeding in any serious amount, the accretion disk will probably emit enough energy to make our lives relatively uncomfortable, to put it like that. Any near-by, that is basically anywhere in our galaxy, gamma ray burst would probably also extinguish most life on earth, though not completely sterilize it. Humans would be gone for sure. That includes any human colonists on their way to, or already in, any near-by solar system.

There are probably many other events that we currently do not know about that can cause significant damage to organic material on our planet. The Universe in general, and galaxies in particular, are insanely hostile to life.

This, by the way, is the easiest arguments against the religious nuts claiming this universe was created by some dude who wanted to keep life in it. If it was, the dude was a complete retard or insanely evil. So, Christians have a few choices. Their God is either a complete incompetent retard or he is absurdly evil, or, which is the more likely option, he doesn't exist outside of the human psyche.

Re:Not Necessarily

[denton420]

I cannot provide proof for the reasoning behind it, just the common idea that in an almost infinitely large universe the probability of another earth like planet is almost guaranteed. Your post just stated it in a neat way I felt. Its more a matter of opinion the way I am describing it. I am sure it could be expanded upon and has been many times over.

I do not see how finding life on Mars would provide more solid proof since it could have been just as easily ejected from earth and landed on the martian surface.

If the life found on Mars did have different signatures due to atmospheric differences/mineral composition and the like, could we be sure that it was not ejected from earth millions of years ago and subsequently went extinct here? I am just thinking out loud, I can think of a few flaws to the line of reasoning... I just dont see how finding life on mars could be a sure indicator of life forming on other planets. Much like an earth like planet existing. Which one is more likely though remains distinct.

In regards to a meteor striking earth and killing all its inhabitants, I agree. A meteor is the least of our worries. However, when i said that we must avoid eradication I was thinking along the same lines as you. I am no expert, but would a gamma ray burst, no matter the size, have to be directed onto a said location to provide the levels of radiation and energy that would be lethal instantaneously if not crippling the atmosphere of the said planet?

Several groups of physicists have shown that the odds of a GRB eradicating life on earth is zero due to the spiral nature of our galaxy.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24692

Going way into the future, if we did start to inhabit different galaxies the only thing I could see wiping out civilization would be either itself or the big crunch at the end of time as we understand it. If we ever do spread out to this unimaginable magnitude, we will be able to predict almost all phenomena in the universe with as much certainty as they allow. Even the precise moment when the inevitable will occur...

Re:Not Necessarily

[denton420]

Ah forgot to mention in my previous post, I love that bit on the universe being created by a retarded or an insanely evil creator.

I will try this out on some of my religious friends, should make for a good discussion.

Re:Not Necessarily

[luzr]

Any near-by, that is basically anywhere in our galaxy, gamma ray burst would probably also extinguish most life on earth, though not completely sterilize it.

I would not too much afraid about this one - life on earth exists for VERY long time, so if there would be such possibility, it would have already happened.

AFAIK, gamma ray bursts only happen in specific kinds of young galaxies. Our galaxy appears to be free of this problem, which is nicely demonstrated by the fact that it has not happened in last 4 billion years..

Re:2008 just called...

[Sporkus]

The link you provided says the Senate passed the Telecom Immunity Bill. Not just Bush.

What's more, Obama voted the same way that Bush did. And had he voted, McCain would have almost certainly voted the same way, too.

Reminds me of a South Park episode...

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[Teun]

Hi Dubya!

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because decent people have a natural dislike for him doesn't mean that they should have to sensor themselves in order to prevent you from coming to grips with yourself and your actions.

Reminds me of Nixon

[wisebabo]

Nixon also got "lucky" with a major scientific coup (the Apollo moon landings) happening on his watch. He despised JFK and killed the program just as soon as he could. Still, it is his name and not JFK's that is on the plaque affixed to the lunar lander descent stage. Hundreds/Thousands/Millions of years from now it'll still be there.

The low TV ratings didn't help either.

Gold, we've struk gold !

[wimg]

Maybe the big announcement is that Mars is covered with gold dust particles... or worse : plutonium.
Maybe we'll now discover the Martians used nuclear bombs on eachother and thus destroyed their civilization. Maybe we need to dig under the sand for ultra modern technology ;-)

Re:Gold, we've struk gold !

[spacefiddle]

Oh dear lord. Element 79! Must've read that 25 years ago. one moment... to the googlemobile!

here we go:
Element 79 by Fred Hoyle. Title story is about a humongous gold meteor impacting earth, and how it needs to be carefully guarded, broken down, and hidden away, before anyone notices and Hilarity Ensues, like the price of gold renting a sub-subbasement of Hell).

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[ScentCone]

Bush's actions shows his lack of reason, intelligence, logic, lack of understanding of the rudiments of the scientific method...

Which is worse... that Bill Clinton ALSO goes to church and believes in a All Powerful Magic Invisible Friend, or that he was also lying about that?

But more to the point, what about Obama? He says that his personal relationship with an All Powerful Magic Invisible Friend is the most important thing that shapes his world view and his code of ethics. Someone without a lifelong background in weightly intellectual pursuits and science can probably come by his church-going honestly (especially if that social structure helped get them out from an admitted drinking problem when he was young). But what's the excuse for the guy that's happily going along with the huge media spin that he's The Smartest Guy Ever, and the voice of hip, young, reason? He's superstitious, thinks gays shouldn't be married, and was comfortable having his children's world view shaped in a church that preaches about how, among other things, the US government is infecting black people with AIDS on purpose ... until, of course, the world caught on that that was here he was going every Sunday for 20 years. Who cares whether or not he personally bought that line of BS power-through-victimhood. The point is that he lacked the reason, logic, and intellectual integrity to stand up against is - let alone take his family away from it - until he was shamed into doing so.

So, whatever problem you have with Bush you ALSO have with Obama, right? Or are you a hypocrite?

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, speaking as someone who isn't from the US, I think the rest of the world isn't going to let the US forget Bush 1 & 2. Ever.

The US inflicted him on the world, and the rest of the world does tend towards a "you break it, you bought it" policy.

Witness, for instance, the amount of hand-washing being done amongst nations with regards to Iraq - the unmistakable sentiment is "you fucked it up, now you fix it."

If the US finds a decent, workable solution to Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, numerous South American countries, WIPO, WTO, etc, etc, then we might stop ragging on the US a bit.

At least, this is what I assume. I just bash Bush because he's an emissary of Satan sent here to lower the standards.

Reason for informing White House?

[videoBuff]

Since this news is about potential for Mars Life, it follows that NASA is going by âoeSETI Post Detection Protocol.â Special Issue Acta Astronautica, Vol. 21, No. 2, J.C. Tarter and M.A. Michaud (eds.) (1990) or its variants.

http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/protdet.htm "The discoverer should inform his/her or its relevant national authorities." This is in Step 2 of the protocol. The implication is that Step 3 will not happen, unless Step 2 is allowed.

This practice is not anything new. When Mars meteorite ALH 84001 was suspected to have fossilized life, previous White House administration was notified. Only after getting permission from White House (took about couple of weeks) was that news even published.

Re:Reason for informing White House?

[wimg]

Odd thought : what would the discovery of alien life do for intelligent design ? Basically, it would destroy their entire way of thinking, right ?
This would prove that life has evolved on other planets and, as such, God did not just create earth and created all animals here.

As for scientology, I have no idea, and don't even want to know ;-)

Re:Reason for informing White House?

[pauljlucas]

[W]hat would the discovery of alien life do for intelligent design? Basically, it would destroy their entire way of thinking, right?

Most likely not, unfortunately. The problem is that you almost never can use either logic or scientific proof to refute dogma. Remember that the ID crowd are the same people who, after being shown fossils, carbon dating, etc., came up with the wacky explanation that the fossils were placed there either by god to test their faith or the devil to make people not believe in god. If life were discovered elsewhere, I assure you that the ID crowd will contrive some wacky explanation to account for it.

Re:Reason for informing White House?

[tkw954]

It says one should *inform* his/her national authorities. Nowhere does it say to wait for permission. In fact, step 4 requires open and wide dissemination of the discovery.

Although I am lead to believe that a certain national authority has pro-actively avoided being informed of certain information in the past. However, no one really takes them seriously.

Re:Reason for informing White House?

[Shihar]

Uh, no. It would just show (to them) that God... err the "intelligent designer" dropped some life on Mars and made it occasional change by magic in ways different from the way the "intelligent designer" uses magic on the creatures on Earth to make them change.

ID doesn't argue that we don't evolve. It just argues that evolution happens by magic, or as they put it "non-evolutionary means". I can safely say that nothing from finding living life on Mars to having UFOs drop in are going to convince the ID folks anything other than what they believe. It is a crappy theory that makes no predictions and argues that the medium being used is magic. No amount of reason is going to get through to people who believe in magic.

Re:Reason for informing White House?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this news is about potential for Mars Life, it follows that NASA is going by SETI Post Detection Protocol...

It really, really doesn't. It's not SETL, it's SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. In fact the article from your very own link is titled, "Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence."

Now, if they found intelligent life on Mars, I'll apologize.

Re:2008 just called...

[Teun]

Please note I put Christians between marks.

(Because) I spoke about Creationists and ID supporters.

In my world that's quite a difference with (Roman!) Catholics or main stream Protestants.

I fully agree the Bible does not at any point exclude other life.

And for me the Bible is not a fact book but a guide.

Re:2008 just called...

[pallmall1]

I'm more than willing to go Godwin on you. Don't make me go Godwin.

Your rabid hatred is boiling over. Get a grip.

Re:2008 just called...

[Joe Tie.]

Creationists and ID people have never needed time to come up with ways to bury their heads in the sand. The people who subscribe to it never go to outside sources again to see if the party line has been refuted so even outright lies are usually good enough. Look at the recent thing with bacterial evolution, when frozen samples were right there and the creationists in general just decided to ignore that fact.

U.S. is better than Al Qaeda

[wisebabo]

Do you really wish to compare Al Qaeda and the U.S. in the same breath?

Because, if they are comparable, the terrorists really have won.

Re:U.S. is better than Al Qaeda

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no comparison. America has killed tens of thousands more people.

Does this mean enemies were discovered?

[OKCfunky]

But will this knowledge being passed to the administration be lost in translation such it's interpreted that a possible Al Qaeda cell has been found? At the very minimum, does it posit that WMD have been discovered on Mars that threatens the fabric of American society.

As a neocon, I demand to know if this encroaches on intelligent design as well.

Re:Does this mean enemies were discovered?

[Anonymous Coward]

But will this knowledge being passed to the administration be lost in translation such it's interpreted that a possible Al Qaeda cell has been found?

Well, I imagine the life on Mars isn't terribly happy with the United States right now. The Phoenix probably killed quite a few of them with its thrusters while landing. Then it proceeded to scoop up the soil and cause water to sublimate, killing many more of them of thirst. Then it scooped up a few more million of them, and dropped them in an oven.

They might be pissed off enough to join Al Qaeda :)

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[videoBuff]

From aviationweek.com article "International news media trumpeted the water ice confirmation, which was not a surprise to any of the Phoenix researchers. "They have discovered water on Mars for the third or fourth time," one senior Mars scientists joked about the hubbub around the water ice announcement.

Not just international media, even "/. scientists" in a previous discussion were speculating that text books will be written about discovering water - for fourth time :-)

Cut the human race a little slack

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that we have spent 99% of our time on our earth living in those same trees as our "cousins with fur," I'd say we are making very good progress towards a more intelligent state of being.

Really, we are quite new at this whole "intelligence" bit. Our technological evolution is progressing at breakneck speed, and has already greatly outpaced our physical evolution, producing a whole host of problems. But we are dealing with them as best as we are able.

From a small-picture view (say, the average human lifespan, which has quadrupled in the past 10000 years I might add), these problems may seem very disconcerting. However, from a bigger picture view, we are coming along nicely.

WMDs?

[NCG_Mike]

So that's where they've been hidden all this time ;-)

Re:2008 just called...

[pallmall1]

then he is a template for how a President can act like a dictator and get away with it.

That's a perfect illustration of the problem with excessive hatred. You can't see clearly who is letting him get away with "it".

The Democrats took over congress, yet the troops are still in Iraq, the surveillance legislation was passed, Obama now says new offshore drilling is acceptable, and there's no impeachment of Bush. But all that is being overlooked because it's easier to hate than to think.

What's more important to you -- your hatred or your principles?

We're talking Bush, you dimwits!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush doesn't give a shit about life. It must be OIL!!!!!

Why

[kenp2002]

The main reason we are interested in life on Mars has nothing to do with life on Mars. We want to strip mine the fuck out of another planet and not have to worry about environmental shit.

No life? No problems.

Re:2008 just called...

[PopeRatzo]

All this Bush hating is getting as tiresome as all that Clinton hating that Rush Limbaugh kept spewing after 2000.

You're right, of course. Plus, there are so many more of us Bush haters than there ever were Americans who hated Clinton, the overall concentration of hate is much greater.

This is one reason that as we near the election in November Americans are becoming more excited about the prospect of finally putting the nightmare behind us, and by electing Barack Obama, we may actually have someone who appears capable in the White House.

I was just reading today about the Ethics Bill that Obama sponsored that nobody else wanted to touch because they believed it could never be passed. Here, a freshman senator comes along and gets everyone on board for some of the most serious ethics reforms in 50 years. It really looks more and more like Obama is the real deal, despite the desperate screechings of sinking Republican vessel.

Re:2008 just called...

[speedtux]

Sitting presidents have frequently ignored Constitutional limits, and in a number of cases to the great benefit of the nation.

Despite the atrocious abuses by Bush, I am not convinced that it is good the hamstring the president. In the long run, living with presidents like Bush may be the price for getting presidents like Lincoln.

Mar's is a red-state.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars is definitely a red state.

Obviously God has revealed the Martians at the last moment to save the November elections from the Democrats.

Re:2008 just called...

[pallmall1]

If the US finds a decent, workable solution to Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, numerous South American countries, WIPO, WTO, etc, etc, then we might stop ragging on the US a bit.

Well, I hope that the solution is better than the one Europe found for Serbia. Oh, wait, they didn't. They stood by as hundreds of thousands of people were brutally executed and dumped into mass graves as their wives and daughters were being raped.

If that didn't happen, then I might listen to your ragging.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a perfect illustration of the problem with excessive hatred. You can't see clearly who is letting him get away with "it".

BTW, have you checked Congress's approval recently? We hate them too.

Re:2008 just called...

[phorm]

Of course, if they were impeached, charged, arrested, and imprisoned (unlikely, but hey, one can wished) even after the term, that would set a nice message for future holders of the office as well.

Re:2008 just called...

[Pictish Prince]

Stupid modder doesn't know what a troll is.

They struck oil!

[nategoose]

Which does suggests both that there was life on Mars millions of years ago, and that there will be again when we go get it.

Re:2008 just called...

[Original Replica]

That's a perfect illustration of the problem with excessive hatred. You can't see clearly who is letting him get away with "it".

yes I can and do see that it is the democratically controlled Congress that is letting him get away with this. That is why it is imperative that he not be allowed to finish his term unimpeached. The US government is broken and we are rapidly running out of time to fix it in a nonviolent, rule of law, kind of way. I hate on Bush because of the permanent damage he has done by exploiting the weaknesses in our voter population (fear mongering) and creating loopholes and weaknesses in our Constitution's checks and balances and separation of powers. Thanks to gerrymandering and a lack of congressional term limits, I've never had very high expectations or opinions of Congress, but somehow I've just always held the President to a higher standard. Congress has been this broken for as long as I can remember, but with the presidency just as fubared as congress I've got very little hope for the long term sustainability of America as a free country.

wrong

[unity100]

lobbyists are not petitioning the government as 'citizens'. they are petitioning as representatives of holders of big cash. and they are sponsoring representatives to sponsor laws for their own benefit.

no citizen has that kind of petitioning power.

Re:wrong

[delong]

Really? So the numerous agricultural combine lobbyist groups, comprised of small farm holders, is "big cash"? La Raza, the largest Hispanic lobbying group, is "big cash"? How about lobbyists from the ABA, or the AMA?

This notion that only "big cash" hire lobbyists is a myth. And its a myth perpetrated by the ignorant that can only rail against "the MAN" while sitting on their couches doing nothing.

Re:wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, The NRA is funded mostly by member dues...$35 last I looked.

Yet you and all the other morons here would undoubtedly call them the "Moneyed" or "special interests"

Re:wrong

[TheoMurpse]

Indeed, one of the largest lobbying groups in the United States is a group of retirees.

Re:wrong

[unity100]

compare those groups to media cartels, military-defense complex, and oil megacorps, and youll have your answer.

if you cant, let me tell you : they are one of the smallest fish in the pond.

Re:2008 just called...

[pallmall1]

...so many more of us Bush haters...

Don't you get it? DROP THE HATE! Your hatred of Bush is worse than the hatred that conservatives are always being accused of.

Hatred is not serving your cause. It only gives credence to the existence of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Half a minute on google would reveal the Bush-appointees amid the Court's ranks. And as much news and controversy as their appointments caused, I don't think the GP is too remiss in not typing out their bios.

How is babby formed?

[frenchgates]

They need to do way instain poster!

Re:2008 just called...

[thecroc]

So you are essentially saying you are ok with a dictator so long as he sometimes does stuff you like? Good luck with that. I myself like freedom too much to go along with that kind of crap.

Re:2008 just called...

[pallmall1]

BTW, have you checked Congress's approval recently? We hate them too.

Good point. Why don't I see any posts about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid?

I'm not an expert, but

[Yxven]

the reasoning for the briefing is because the discovery of life on mars would be very controversial.

Certain religions have been founded on the belief that mankind, all life forms, and the earth were created in 7 days. Before Galileo, all Christans *knew* that the earth was the center of the universe, and it was quite damning for the church to be proven otherwise.

Right now, all Christan fundamentalists *know* that life only exists on earth. Granted, I have no doubt they'll be able to spin it, but the point is that the bible would lose even more credibility. In a country where you have to be Christan to be elected president, that is very significant.

An even more damning event would be to find a more advanced species that has never heard of God, or worse, follows a religion significantly different than Christianity. I again have little doubt that they wouldn't be able to spin it, but when your religion is based off a novel that is considered the word of god and that novel is consistently proven wrong, your religion is going to have problems.

Re:I'm not an expert, but

[frenchgates]

Actually religious ideas have proven impervious to even the strongest contrary evidence. It always denies or adapts. Evidence of alien life is nothing compared to heliocentrism, yet the Catholic church is still going strong.

Look, you can go to a revival meeting where some mountebank is perpetrating a money-making fraud and debunk him on the spot, and the believers will run YOU out of town on a rail, not the "preacher." This whole idea that someone would cover up alien life because religions would be upset is superficial and ridiculous.

Re:I'm not an expert, but

[rantingkitten]

Please. I can't think of a scientific discovery that has shaken Christianity in the slightest. Heliocentric models? Sure, it caused a stir way back when, but people got over it, and today, any Christian can offer you an impressive account of how the precise orbits of the planets are actually a sign of God's power and wisdom.

Evolutionary biology? There are some loudmouthed idiots who are still fighting it, but their numbers have steadily been dwindling. In another few decades they'll be regarded the same way as people who still think the Earth is flat -- just a couple of stray crackpots. Everyone else will agree that the intricacies of life developing little by little is a sign of God's infinite forethought and divine master plan.

If alien life is ever detected it'll be no different. It'll cause a ruckus at first, and then the fundies will find a way to integrate it into their belief system so that their Bible really supported it all along. You know, something like how the Bible doesn't really even discuss other planets, because it was written for humans, here on Earth, and just because it doesn't mention life elsewhere doesn't mean it says there can't be life elsewhere. God was wise enough to spread magnificent life everywhere, to teach us and let us expand, be fruitful, and multiply! Blessed is the Lord's gracious nature for allowing us to meet our cosmic neighbors. Amen.

Re:2008 just called...

[Toonol]

And if Obama wins, we'll no doubt be very tired of all the Barack-hating that will be sweeping the nation in 2011.

there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[unity100]

verly-obedient populace resulting from excessive media control and from everyone being too in-debt and thus too over-worked to invest time in their own government. Secondly, violation of the "design and philosophy" of the system by governing parties that has gone unpunished.

all leads to corporationism and what corporations do to united states.

a total bastardization of capitalism, corporations control the daily lives of citizens in indirect ways. because much of profit is garnered by the corporation, the citizens are paid minimum that is possible for every level. distribution of wealth therefore is horribly bad. 'competitive free market' cant fix it either, because, inevitably, after a certain treshold, corporations become SO big that the country cant risk going against those corporations for fear of economic instability and crisis. and reinforcing the cycle, corporations can also buy laws from 'sponsored' lawmakers for their own benefit. add the media that is under control of the few big corporations to this equaation, and you have your problem.

excuse me, but all these point to the fact that u.s. system of government is broken. stuff seemed to be working 1776-1950, because globalization had not arrived by then yet, and there werent many huge megacorporations that had economies greater than many countries. (as of now around 20 corporations are in the list of world's biggest 100 economic powers, leaving many countries behind). the world have not seen so big economic power resting in chunks concentrated in private sector, and did not have anything to mitigate the damage they would cause.

and here we are today. lawmakers are putting out laws that benefit a few corporations without any fear of reprisal from their constituents. they are just shelling out the ages old "it will provide jobs" excuse, and everyone falls for it.

little they realize that, in its current form, 'job' basically means indentured servitude of the 21st century kind. long hours of work, diminishing benefits, decreasing pay and job security. all the while reinforcing the cycle.

it is a downward spiral. it is dangerous.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

To a neo-con, a "troll" is anyone who doesn't bend over and toe the party line. Said heretics must, of course, be silenced. Because, after all, if you not with them, than you're with THE TERRORISTS.

Re:2008 just called...

[wrf3]

Creationists and ID people have never needed time to come up with ways to bury their heads in the sand. The people who subscribe to it never go to outside sources again to see if the party line has been refuted so even outright lies are usually good enough.

I'm sorry, but just where and when was "God created the heavens and the earth" refuted?

Look at the recent thing with bacterial evolution, when frozen samples were right there and the creationists in general just decided to ignore that fact.

Again, what fact was ignored? Nobody that I know of argues against "living things change over time."

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[CptNerd]

The key part is in the last paragraph, where it says the "provocative" results came from the experiment where they added water from Earth to a sample of soil. I bet they had a burst of oxygen like the old Viking lander experiments, which no one ever satisfactorily explained. The one that I remembered that made sense was some kind of dry peroxide in the soil formed by UV, which reacted with water to generate O2, but didn't repeat because the peroxide was used up.

I hope this indicates some kind of chemistry that makes it easy to extract breathable O2 from Martian soil, so that any explorers/exploiters won't have to take as much in consumables. Would be nice to find a nitrogen source, then you'd have CHON, which is most of what you need to live. In the right proportions, of course.

Re:2008 just called...

[unity100]

i would like to remind you that hillary clinton has remained as poisonous as any poison ivy can be, until 2008, and probably still remains as such. so your argument is invalid. just because someone is getting out of office, does not mean that they wont be able to influence things.

Re:2008 just called...

[spacefiddle]

Parent is not a troll. If anything, what he responded to is: parent replied with cited info for his position. Yet the "stop hatin'lol" poster got modded Insightful. Pff.

Not "Scientific" but..

[Anonymous Coward]

"in no way indicate the existence of life (past or present) on Mars; Phoenix simply is not equipped make this discovery."
Doesn't it have a camera? Any life that walks by could be "discovered" right?

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, for the "fact" that any of those planets that are more than 6000 or so light years away are FAKES that he put there to "test our faith". Odd guy, that god. But you have to admire his attention to detail. He red-shifted all of that fake light from everything older than 6000ly, and even remembered to tamper with the carbon isotopes in those fake dinosaur bones.

Re:2008 just called...

[Kagura]

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=001039;p=0

People may hate Bush, and with good reason, but there's simply no excuse for exaggerating with lies, and to do so weakens the anti-Bush side of the camp. For people like me who have yet to fully formulate their opinion on Bush, it's hard to forget something like the parent's post, and makes me lean strongly away from "the side that has to lie to gain followers", even though I know deep down that only the extremist minority believe such things.

Re:2008 just called...

[smack.addict]

I'm sorry, but just where and when was "God created the heavens and the earth" refuted?

The same place where "A big ass ham sandwiched shat a load of mayonaise and, behold, the world was alive," was refuted.

In other words, you don't prove a negative. But you can recognize that there is absolutely no evidence AT ALL for either assertion and, furthermore, that each assertion is terribly fantastic and requires a significant level of support before it should even be considered.

Re:2008 just called...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Well... Pelosi makes all the right promises, and then totally fails to carry them out. I, for one, don't get it. As Speaker of the House she has a tremendous amount of power, if only she'd grow enough of a pair to use it. But she has utterly failed to represent her constituents' wishes (I'm one on them, and will NOT be voting for her again.).

But her power is not that of a prime mover. She had the power to STOP Bush, to STOP the war, to STOP the more vile legislation. She was not the one who INITIATED any of that. So, while she's a failure, she's not the actual source of the malignancy. And no, that doesn't give her a free pass. But it also doesn't earn her the kind of enmity that must be directed toward the bushies.

Harry Reid... well... not my senator and not my particular thorn in the side. And the Senate Majority Leader doesn't have nearly so much power as the Speaker of the House anyway. He's just kind of... there. He's also a disappointment and a failure, don't get me wrong. But not to the degree as Pelosi.

But neither one of them are the SOURCE of what's been going terribly wrong these last eight years. So neither one deserves anywhere near the degree of blame.

cya,
john

The Destroyer of Planets

[Holy69]

They are going to end up discovering that humanity is the destroyer of planets. The race that travels from galaxy to galaxy using up all the resources of every planet.

Blah, needless secrecy

[mysidia]

So why is there all this secrecy? According to scientists in communication with Aviation Week & Space Technology, the next big discovery will need to be mulled over for a while before it is announced to the world. In fact, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory science team for the MECA wet-chemistry instrument that made these undisclosed findings were kept out of the July 31st news conference (confirming water) so additional analysis could be carried out, avoiding any questions that may have revealed their preliminary results. They have also made the decision to discuss the results with the Bush Administration's Presidential Science Advisor's office before a press conference between mid-August and early September.

What's with all this hiding information?? That's not what science is about.

We need to have laws requiring immediate online public disclosure of experimental data by gov't sponsored science.

There is no need to 'mull over' preliminary results. Only to avoid reaching conclusions the data don't justify.

It is not as if the results could hurt anyone or have the least bit effect on anyone's lives (mars being hundreds of thousands of miles away)

Re:Blah, needless secrecy

[mpthompson]

Perhaps the scientists and policy makers just want time to get it right. Making a big announcement only to have egg or your face days, weeks or months later doesn't help anyone.

Re:Blah, needless secrecy

[mysidia]

They don't need to make a big announcement to reveal what they find so far.

They can't get egg in their face if they indicate how uncertain they are in the first place, and they avoid drawing unwarranted conclusions.

They can always reveal preliminary details, and make the announcement of findings and interpretation later.

Re:2008 just called...

[drsmithy]

This is one reason that as we near the election in November Americans are becoming more excited about the prospect of finally putting the nightmare behind us [...]

The rest of the world has watched y'all fuck it up twice in recent memory, and we remain unconvinced you won't do so again :).

Roswell all over again..NASA in full deny mode

[Anonymous Coward]

Well here is the report and within hours a denial. Wonder, did the Feds run this through their lawyers, political advisors, and local clergy first? Condition: Potential for life, or actual life found living or dead is either in existance from this report or not. If true and the government denies as it is doing, then its truth will manifest itself in other ways sometime in the future. Other governments are involved as well, like the Chinese. It is known that the presence of life elsewhere in our own system will mean that life could be everywhere and anywhere, and all religions based on earth centricism will be affected. Government denial will also stimulate a hearty belief in a coverup by all the world's peoples. The upshot will be a serious affirmation that the United States is withholding valuable information from the world for its own purposes, perhaps military. Oh! You say! How could Martian life be of military value? Think! Life that has survived conditions on Mars would be quite valuable as a bio-weapon to be used by whoever held it on the enemies of whoever held it. So now the denials have been made, and the watching begins. Oh the delicious ecstacy of Chinese officials if they were to come into the possession of the ultimate logical tool to defeat all the religions of the world and to secure the world first for atheism and then for communism. How the Chinese would blackmail the so called faith based governments to pay them not to release this secret to their peoples. Why would faith based governments pay? After all, if they have faith, they would refuse to pay, thinking that God would come to their aid? Would'nt He?! Or perhaps like in the words of the late Edgar Rice Borroughs in one of his 'Opar' novels like the high priestess said to Tarzan: "The more one knows of one's religion, the less one really believes.". Yes those governments would pay. We the people would not be told of this, but would know through illogical and shamefull concessions made to the Chinese or anyone else holding this knowledge. These concessions would be public, major, and greatly prestige costing, like the shipment of fresh water from the United States Great Lakes to China for almost little or no money '...in the interests of keeping peace...'. Yeah, right! Another evidentialy piece would be moving up the future mission of NASA for a 'sample return'. Such mission could not be kept secret, and when we try it, the return mission will have great military value. The Chinese have the technology to shoot down satellites, and will not hesitate to destroy this one. So begins the great game, to be broken when after extracting as many painful concessions as they can, yet one more demand is made that is finally intolerable to even the most hardened monopolist, like giving back Alaska to the Russians and California to the Mexicans or some such. Then the truth known to everyone else in the world will finally be told by the US gov't to its own people with some lame excuses and some salt and pepper. Or maybe we will be told by yet a different country, maybe one not even in the hunt, like the ESA. Why do you readers think that the presence of water was finally and painfully admitted by the United States. All Europeans know there is water on Mars. Theri own satellite told them, and their own governments did not hide this knowledge from them or try to discredit it using paid for so called 'scientists' like the United States did. Why do you think the US is forcing digital televion on you and thinking about redoing the internet. So a curtain of lies can be more successfully drawn down on an apathetic people.

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're just realizing this now? Or finally got fed up enough with it to actually say something...

I find reading these immature, closed-minded rants to be very educational. I keep them in mind when I read posts claiming to have some level of objectivity and authority behind them.

Re:/. becoming a political blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people smarter than I believe in GOD while understanding and appreciating the scientific method so I'm not sure I would say that Obama (or Clinton) are being dishonest. Maybe they are but since I don't read minds I can't say.

Don't know how superstitious he is either (but I and most of us are a little anyway) and while I'm sure I don't support ALL of his social views, I'm sure I support them a lot more than anti-abortion, anti-intellectual, anti-regulation, anti-environment, anti-treaty, pro-gun Bush.

Heard about that Reverend being like an "uncle" to him. Disturbing but considering some of the right-wing loonies McCain's been exposed to all his life not sure if it's worse. Also Obama forcefully repudiated him; last I heard McCain's been cozying up to people he had earlier called "agents of intolerance". Also don't know how much he (or his children) were exposed to that guy, again could have been extensive but he was just one pastor in the church so I don't know. Cite facts please.

Finally one of the reasons why I (and others) post as an A/C is because we really don't want people to make ad hominem attacks on us (like your comment "Or are you a hypocrite?") based on a single post. People who make snap judgements as to someone's character are to be avoided. Less heat and more light please.

russians

[Anonymous Coward]

They found a Russian colony!

interesting mod point fluctuations!

[wisebabo]

Fascinating how this (parent) post goes up and down with mods. It's been as high as a +4 and as low as a 1.

On scientific matters it usually up (if it goes anywhere) and stays there but on politics it goes up and down. People must really disagree on this.

By the way, I should have said "he's still in office HAVING PEOPLE TORTURED" in the title. Even I don't think Bush would himself torture people in the White House.

Re:2008 just called...

[Original Replica]

While that snopes link was pretty damned inconclusive (no actual denials of the statement made by anyone of authority), you are right in that I should have checked to see if that quote was verified. That aside, it doesn't change the fact that Bush has treated the Constitution like just a piece of paper, or at best an obstacle to be overcome. When Obama throws in some signing statements and National security letters to further his agendas it will be just as much of a degradation of our freedoms even if the ideal and outcome of the Obama agenda is more palatable.

nawh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if a president does stuff on the last day like pardon folks like Mr. Marc Rich, after their term is expires, nothing will actually happen. Unless you are suggesting that we can retroactivly go after other ex-presidents in perpetuity...

Informative?

[daemonburrito]

Really?

Mods: The "Abiogenic Petroleum Origin Hypothesis" is garbage.

It's mainly used to comfort people by telling them there is a limitless supply of petroleum, and that energy crises are frauds perpetrated by the one world government in preparation for the arrival of the anti-christ. It's popular in the WorldNetDaily Hal Lindsey circles of charlatanism.

I think parent is kidding, btw... (apologies if you're not)

Re:Informative?

[Mprx]

I think it's garbage too, but I also think life on Mars is unlikely. Finding oil there would not be automatic proof of life.

Re:Informative?

[daemonburrito]

Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, as it appears you're getting points from the contrarian mods. Oh well.

Fwiw, the only automatic proof of life would be direct observation of the life itself. Oil is evidence as strong as fossils (intuitively). In fact, I think Phoenix's instruments could determine the chirality of an oil sample (although I'm not sure that right-handed molecules would disprove a biological origin).

So you're either being pedantic or you're mistaken... The presence of the stuff that we call oil here on Earth would be almost totally conclusive evidence.

Re:Informative?

[MichaelSmith]

In fact, I think Phoenix's instruments could determine the chirality of an oil sample (although I'm not sure that right-handed molecules would disprove a biological origin).

If there is or was life (as we know it) on Mars I am willing to bet that it came from the same source as life on Earth. Either one of those planets or a third source. So the chirality should be the same as ours.

Re:Informative?

[khallow]

It has a more serious history in the old USSR bloc. Still, it probably caught on there because it would have been convenient for the powers that be, if it were true. Which is a terrible reason to go for a theory.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're suggesting the bush hating is a partisan interest, it's not. Rush doesn't hate bush because he (Rush) is a partisan whore.

Re:2008 just called...

[rantingkitten]

And it's damn odd that scientific results have to be 'discussed' with him before they're released.

Not really. They knew he'd need more time than the average person to comprehend the news, so they're giving him a little head start.

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Morse Code and Bill & Ted sound effects here)

Apparently, Helium-3 has been found in the soil on Mars, along with some kind of terrorist like bacteria that attacks everything in sight. If we pull out now the lander will bring back billions of terrorist bacteria to the United States. Bush is planing an all out "War on Bacteria Terrorism" (in order to bring back the Helium-3 to power our fusion cars (which he has wisely invested in).

I bet the government covers up "life on mars"

[Anonymous Coward]

The government will just play the "humanity doesn't need to know in the name of national security" card.

Guaranteed.

Re:I bet the government covers up "life on mars"

[tibman]

That's just silly. You make it sound like the US owns Mars and all the scientific discoveries associated with the planet. A US citizen of reasonable intelligence and common sense would realize other nations or god willing civilian organizations will probe the planet in the near future. Trying to cover up something like "life on mars" is futile and foolish.

Re:I bet the government covers up "life on mars"

[innerweb]

Trying to cover up something like "life on mars" is futile and foolish.

Fancy that... The government to hide something. Not like any agent of the government, elected or not, has ever tried to do anything like that. Land mines in Central America (Iran Contra affair), Weapons for hostages (Iran hostage crisis), The The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or the Lies of the Century (this site will tick some people off!). There are so many examples of people in government doing exactly what you are arguing they would not do for whatever reason. They do not care what the future has in store. They are only focused on getting through their fears of today. People do very funny (and bad) things when they are cornered by their fears or believe they are being cornered by things that they are afraid of.

InnerWeb

Re:I bet the government covers up "life on mars"

[TheoMurpse]

Seeing as how politicians are typically short-term planners nowadays, note that the US is, nearly forty years later, still the only country to have placed a man on the moon.

Now conclude that, on a short-term basis, no other country is likely to discover whatever NASA has discovered (amino acids necessary for RNA, anyone?).

Now conclude that short-term planning politicians will decide not to inform the public based on their judgment regarding the short-term risk of another nation replicating NASA's discovery (AMINO ACIDS NECESSARY FOR RNA, ANYONE?).

White House Briefed...

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean... the White House has balls?

Call me an old cynic...

[iank]

NASA could always do with more funding. They re-pitch the idea that Mars has the building blocks for life and will require a few more $$$ to go back an explore it properly. They see an opportunity with a miserable failure in charge to fool him into signing another cheque.

Personally I think it's a long way to go. Why can't the Mars fossils get off their lazy backsides and come here for a change? ;)

Five minutes after the announcement

[Master of Transhuman]

the White House will be blown to smithereens.

Result: Martians hailed as liberators and greeted with flowers by a grateful Earth citizenry.

Meanwhile, Martians issue a deck of cards with the faces of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on them as the hunt begins.

I for one...

[Hairy1]

I for one welcome our new bacteriological overlords.

Re:2008 just called...

[Tibor the Hun]

Hey man, thanks for remembering!

Re:2008 just called...

[Amorymeltzer]

No it's not - he's the goddamned President! Hate the man all you want, but respect the bloody office. That's what's happening here - A government-funded organization is going to make a huge announcement about Mars being able to sustain life, and they are letting the President know ahead of time. As leader of the country, he deserves to know about anything important ASAP. It'd be a HUGE insult to him (and, yes, perhaps to funding) if he found out because his Chief of Staff watched the news that night.

Re:oops

[h4rm0ny]

I suck cocks.

Some very popular people suck cocks. Don't feel bad about it. :D

I'll admit I was pretty confused by your reply, though. Glad you explained.

Regards,
H.

The bad news is...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well Mr President, the bad news is that we landed the Phoenix on the martian king....the good news is the little bastards are only like an inch tall so who the fuck cares!"

So where's Marvin?

[p51d007]

Until I see Marvin the Martian, with his uranium Q38 explosive space modulator, I don't buy it. LOL

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nevertheless he is responsible for the death of thoundsands of people and a war criminal."

I think that should read MANY thousands of people and MANY war criminals. Saddam Hussein isn't the only bad guy they killed in Iraq, though it wasn't worth the cost of the thousands of (innocent) Iraqi civilian and allied troops that perished or were maimed in the course of this conflict.

Focus, people. It;s all about protocol

[mschuyler]

OK, although y'all are certainly so very clever for not missing a Bush-bashing opportunity, the issue is not about BUSH at all, it's about the OFFICE of the Presidency as the head of government. This tells you one important thing; it's about PROTOCOL. Whatever it is is big enough to involve 'the President' or at least his Science Advisor.

Have you ever received a government grant? Do you think you get to announce the award? No, you don't. The Congressman responsible for herding the grant in conjunction with the Congressman in your district gets to announce it as a press release from their office (usually the same guy). You may think this is pork barrel politics in action. Of course, your attitude may be influenced by whether you are the grantee or the loser.

I guarantee you that whatever they have found will be controversial and there will be groups that jump up immediately to refute it. But it's something big or they'd never bother with the White House. It's got to be bigger than finding water. Martian microbes is my guess, but who knows?

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[flyspagmon]

Yes, that is the original artcle. universetoday.com picked it up first, then I picked *that* up and posted it on Reddit's space section first..
http://www.reddit.com/comments/6ukw2/phoenix_about_to_announce_potential_for_life_on/
Then it appears on slashdot..
Then on digg..
Then on the other news networks.
So aviationweek >> universetoday >> reddit >> slashdot >> digg. It just the way god wants things. Get used to it.
Oh, did you see that picture of me on universetoday? http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/12/cosmic-monster-n44-by-don-goldman/ pasterfari!

Oh noes!

[hacker]

Please don't tell me they found oil...

We have enough problems getting out of Iraq already, I can't imagine having a troop surge to Mars to protect oil there. Besides, who gets to lay claim to that anyway? Is Mars sovereign territory?

Be afraid

[AndyTayl0r]

As we all know, Million to One chances come off nine times out of ten

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[daemonburrito]

I feel compelled to point out that your view of U.S. history is myopic.

stuff seemed to be working 1776-1950, because globalization had not arrived by then yet, and there werent many huge megacorporations that had economies greater than many countries.

Just pulling a counter-example out of my rear: The Gilded Age.

I think you may have to work harder than that to make the case that the rise of megacorporations was due to globalization.

Disclaimer: I'm not a "corporationist". I'm a total pinko.

what a load of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

someone tell me when this is exciting. The NAZI's have been on Mars since the 1950's.

Re:what a load of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, they eventually fight with Bavarian Illumunati neighbours living next door at dark side of the Moon but we get tricked as "astroid shower".

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[h4rm0ny]

If I understand you rightly (please verify), you are agreeing that the fundamental system is valid, but saying that it requires additional modifications to enable it to withstand the pressures of transnational corporatism. That's very interesting. It's an intriguing challenge to try and think of a way you could build safe-guards into the system to protect against this. As we have seen, there actually are safe-guards but the law and constitution is publically being ignored by the government. What you are asking for is a way of setting up rules that protect against people ignoring those rules. Problematic.

But not necessarily impossible. ;) For a start, it's not a simple black and white system. It might be possible to be more explicit and vehement both in emphasising what constitutes variance from the written laws and in the punishments for doing so... something along the lines of "a congress that knowingly protects a member through amendment of existing law must immediately stand down and face an immediate re-election." Not very good - it's just a rapid example of the sort of stuff you could build in. Not fool-proof, but explicit and in your face enough that it's harder to turn a blind eye to. The other approach you could take would be to build pro-active countermeasures into public life through the constitution. Set up a body that has the power to enforce adherence to the law and with the power to prosecute congress (but only in regard to this) and to impeach presidents - a body with an non-negotiable mandate to prosecute on behalf of the public. Prevent disenfranchisement of the electorate through explicit, legal prevention of disbarrment such as by being a convicted felon. Publically fund all election campaigns and legally forbid other sources of funding (very difficult in practice, but damage control still has great benefits). I don't know how many of these actually do exist in some form and I'm just not aware of them, but I list them as illustrations of how a rule system could guard against people not paying attention to the rule-system; because that's essentially what you're asking for and it's difficult.

But I think my original statement is supportable: the problems are not with the fundamental and philosophical structures of the government, but with the enforcement of those structures. Now here in the UK, we do have a problem with the fundamentals, but that's a different area to be looked at. In the USA, you need to stop things like the Telecomms Immunity bill from happening and if possible, undo it and prosecute the telecoms. It would help stop a government promoting / inciting criminal activity in the future.

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[MichaelSmith]

The key part is in the last paragraph, where it says the "provocative" results came from the experiment where they added water from Earth to a sample of soil. I bet they had a burst of oxygen like the old Viking lander experiments, which no one ever satisfactorily explained. The one that I remembered that made sense was some kind of dry peroxide in the soil formed by UV, which reacted with water to generate O2, but didn't repeat because the peroxide was used up.

This is mainly a guess because I don't understand the chemistry. Previously NASA announced that the regolith they sampled was pretty normal soil and that you could grow some plants in it without modification. Is that still consistent with presence of the "dry peroxide"?

Ok, my turn to speculate...

[JamesP]

Raw image from Sol 58 (today is Sol 67), from the Optical Microscope, corresponding to Wheel Position "Strong Magnet"

http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=15547&cID=173

Picture taken under UV Light, if you compare to the "Dark Picture" there is a tiny trace of Fluorescence

It also very 'brilliant' under Green and Red (so, I guess one can say it may be 'yellow'/'orange')

Granted, lots of minerals have fluorescence, I am not a phd in chemistry, in fact I have no idea what I'm talking about...

But remember magnetite?!? And bacteria fluorescence??

Changed plenty.

[ztcamper]

There are tools and tools. Stick vs nuclear warhead. Humans have progressed more in past 2000... hell 200 years than entire planet since it came into existence. Sure we are meat bags with intense desire to mate like bunnies and hoard as much shit as possible while making every other meat bag on this planet miserable just because it feels good. However I cant wait to see the day when some other species on this planet gets together and builds a particle accelerator or starts looking for the meaning of life.

Does it matter?

[cdrguru]

We may be electing a president that has significant ties to the "progressive" community. I see a few comments sprinkled in from such people on Slashdot every once in a while.

Here is an especially telling example: Sean Penn.

Personally, I think such idiocy needs to be called out, shown for what it is and make sure the author gets some education. The part the troubles me is Mr. Penn is hardly in the minority among celebrities. Lots of people that got rich off doing almost nothing seem to feel this way.

Something better than water

[BrentRJones]

Gatorade? Coke? Pepsi? Champagne?

NO! TANG - the astronaut drink!

Note.....

[IHC Navistar]

Did they clarify that "Potential or life" does not mean that Marvin The Martian is real?

Totally fascinating

[daemonburrito]

Either way, it would be amazing.

I tried to google for this item, but I couldn't find it due to the generality of my terms: I seem to remember a few years ago that someone identified fragments of specific rna or dna fragments in petroleum. I have no idea how difficult that is to do... But it seems like it would be possible.

So if there was petroleum, and all the molecules were right-handed, but were complex in the same manner as to be attributed to biological synthesis, it would say something just as fascinating about the universe.

But yeah, I think your bet is a pretty good one.

Re:2008 just called...

[slick_shoes]

Phoenix has unearthed an 'ancient' ballot box full of votes for Al Gore - mark my words.

Re:2008 just called...

[Fear the Clam]

It'd be a HUGE insult to him (and, yes, perhaps to funding) if he found out because his Chief of Staff watched the news that night.

Why? It's not it's never happened before.

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[Spikeles]

The previous announcements were like seeing an iceberg with a telescope from a distance. You're pretty sure it's ice, it looks like ice, the radar says it's ice, it's about where you would expect ice to be, but you can't actually be certain it's ice until you go over to it and get your tongue stuck while licking it.

About a microbe named George...

[PDX]

Who is the discovery named after? T.E.G.A. contains the word Evolved something that the President's core constituents won't stand for.

Yes but...

[bratwiz]

What's the potential for life in the White House?

Subject

[Legion303]

Martians did 9/11. Better invade them space terrists afore it's too late.

Sir, we have good news and bad news.

[Griffon26]

Bush: Gimme the good news first.

Scientist: We found life on Mars.

Bush: So what's the bad news?

Scientist: We killed it in the TEGA.

It means Jastrow will be vindicated

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a class with Dr. Robert Jastrow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow

He used to voice displeasure frequently over the caution of his fellow space scientists. He said that one of the Mars landers (back in the 70s or 80s? - I can't remember the exact date) held 4 tests for life. All four tests were positive. Rather than the NASA scientists announcing "Life on Mars" they instead were so astounded that they declared that the tests must have been faulty. It pissed Jastrow off to no end.

Jastrow announced to those assembled in his class,

"Mark my words. There IS life on Mars. It has been proven, I am fully convinced of it, fully convinced of the validity of those tests. One day the scientists will actually catch up to the science and you'll finally hear all the big hullabaloo of, holy crap, there is life on Mars after all! But mark my words, kids - we already know this. For a fact."

I have been waiting more than 20 years for the scientists to catch up to the science, to see Jastrow vindicated. I can't wait until the announcement is finally made.

Re:It means Jastrow will be vindicated

[Anonymous Coward]

This article supports your description of his perspective in your class:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945743,00.html

Re:It means Jastrow will be vindicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Read these quotes, too - he definitively believed it, that's true.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x1BYMA-8oq8C&pg=RA1-PA280&lpg=RA1-PA280&dq=%22Robert+jastrow%22+mars+life&source=web&ots=pwn7_hx3Ra&sig=2EEVoUDCGpJg5OHRM2BFetpo26k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

"Potential for Life"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the "Potential for Life" is a substantial number of bacteria and viruses from Earth. In particular, could be the presence of Variola major and Variola minor (Smallpox) scattered on and around the probe from earth and a few dead Martians who look to have been investigating it before apparently succumbing to the disease. The desolated nearby Martian cities would be lifeless - filled with the corpses of the recently dead native Martian lifeforms and the lonely remains of their ancient, advanced civilization.

Just out of curiosity, exactly which of the spacecraft/probes humans have sent to Mars were adequately sterilized first?

How to get man to Mars pronto...

[knorthern knight]

Plan a) Convince Dubya that there are weapons of mass destruction on Mars, and he'll get 100,000 soldiers out there no time flat

Plan b) If a Democrat gets elected in 2008, convince them that Mars is an excellent place to sequester earth's excess CO2.

Re:2008 just called...

[Lemmy Caution]

No, it's not rabid hatred. It's utter contempt for the sitting President, based on a well-based appraisal of GWB as among the worst presidents in US history.

If it were rabid hatred, I would rail against conservatives. I don't. I'm fairly complex politically. Rabid hatred would be foaming-at-the mouth rock-throwing anti-globalization protestors - and the sort of talk-radio-addicted people who use the word "liberal" as an insult.

Bush sucks. He's really, really bad. His administration is out of control in its flouting of any kind of accountability. Government spending has mushroomed under his tenure, while the economy has softened (partially due to a failure to exercise some pro-active constraints on the mortgage industry, among other things.) Dismissing these facts as "rabid hatred" doesn't make them go away.

Re:2008 just called...

[Lemmy Caution]

Oh, that "Godwin" thing as rabid hatred? No, it's called meta-discursive wit.

Re:2008 just called...

[Opyros]

Also, the story sounds suspiciously like the WWI incident when the German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg supposedly called the 1839 Treaty of London "a mere scrap of paper".

John McCain is a scatmuncher

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize he was a friend of Sean Penn's, though. Learn something new every day.

"Democracy is the worst form of government..."

[jamrock]

"...except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchill, November 11, 1947

Re:"Democracy is the worst form of government..."

[kvezach]

The problem with that quote is that there isn't just one ideal, Platonic democracy. You have democracies ranking all the way from elected kings through illiberal democracies to direct democracy. You have corrupt democracies, democracies with unequal voting weights, democracies bordering on plutocracy or oligarchy; democracy by lot, council and proxy democracy, you name it.

Now which of these "are the worst except the rest that have been tried?". The republic of the founders might well have been much better than what the current democracy has degenerated into. How do you tell a democracy that's just on the democratic side of the border between democracy and dictatorship, from one that's just on the dictatorship side of the border?

Instruments

[wikinerd]

Let's assume that this is true, and not the imagination of some journalist. Before starting making comments about what the discovery might be, I would suggest first checking to see what instruments are onboard. Phoenix can't find something it can't look out for. Therefore it makes sense to first know what it can find before trying to make a prediction of what it might have found. Of course, the discovery may not be about something it *found* but rather about something it carried (eg Earth microbes contaminated Mars or something), but again it should have an instrument capable of detecting such contamination. Therefore, before making predictions, head up here to read about Phoenix's instruments.

I'd bet that...

[Anonymous Coward]

they probably just found a Starbucks.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm... Bush is still in office, and still causing damage.

Impeaching the bastard would do wonders for our political system, regardless of how much time he's got left.

If you impeach Bush then you end up with Cheney as president. Personally I would just ride it out with Bush.

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[CptNerd]

I'm really not sure, it's just a vaguely remembered article from Scientific American or some such from a couple decades ago. I remember that they put the soil samples into a medium which had some kind of organic material, like agar or something, as well as water, and that there was a flurry of results, of oxygen being released (isotope tagged in the medium) but when they added more medium, there was no more oxygen produced. I remember a lot of discussions about some kind of explanation, and at the time the peroxide theory had the least arguments against it. I imagine a google search might find more info. Hopefully we'll learn about this latest find soon.

Oil on Mars

[gbradski]

The only possible reason to inform Bush and the only thing he could possibly understand is that they found oil on Mars and they are giving him a few weeks to create a bill to open up Mars for drilling. Either that or they detected frozen urine from an Al Queda base. If it is either of these events, NASA's budget is going to soar.

Re:2008 just called...

[smchris]

It'd be a HUGE insult to him (and, yes, perhaps to funding) if he found out because his Chief of Staff watched the news that night.

Like Bush is going to be the first person in the White House they tell the news to anyway. Who's going to draw up the comic book for him?
   

The sad truth is, politicians do what we want.

[tjstork]

In fact, the politicians do exactly what we want. We as normal citizens tend to only talk to people that are "like" us and the Internet has only made this worse. If you spent most of your time on DailyKos, you might think everyone was a liberal. Similarly, if you hung out on the FreeRepublic, you might think everyone was conservative.

You and others of your bent complain about corporations, and how evil they are, but at the same token, there's a lot of people that actually LIKE corporations and see them as a good thing, and if they have a complaint, it is that they either do not own one themselves, bought stock in the wrong one, or are not far up enough the management chain.

If the average person thought Walmart was evil, they would not have a business worth in excess of 200 billion dollars. People wouldn't shop there, and, if you tried to ban Walmart or screw it up in some way, people would shop at the next cheapest thing that came along. If the average person really thought we should protect American manufacturing, Ford stock might be worth more than $5 a share. If the average person really wanted to take the extra expense to protect the environment, they'd do it. If the average person was against guns, they wouldn't be made. There's no law that requires people to go to church and yet churches in some parts of the country are packed. If the average person thought Linux was better, they'd be using it.

Money does talk, and many Americans have voted loud and clear. They like to shop at Walmart, buy guns, drive foreign cars and buy foreign goods and they don't really care about the homeless except for when they trip over them, the environment, except maybe to decorate the yard with some new bushes and some wind chimes, and they generally like power tools, big televisions, more channels, violent video games, loads of porn over the internet, loads of beef and chicken for dinner and sometimes some pork. Other than that, they want to be left alone.

Lobbyists get paid for a reason. They get paid because the people that hire them have a legislative message and there are -many- messages out there. You'll have environmental lobbying, racial lobbying, religious lobbying, each of which representing the membership of some organization that you or I or the man down the street belongs to.

What else could there possibly be? We want a ton of stuff from government but don't want to pay for it, so we borrow it on all levels and try and get someone else to pay. A lot of Americans flat out don't want to work so they fight for disability, social security, welfare, unions and what not, or, they fight for the right to invest without taxation or charges, so we have low capital gains taxes and loads of welfare. Americans don't like the war in Iraq but they also do not like to lose, and so we stay in Iraq.

I could go on and on and on like this, but it should be pretty clear that we are getting the government that is exactly what we want. Our politicians only suck because we do.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do Americans still call the occupation a war. I know why Congress does, but why do ordinary Americans do it? War is something between nations, not against "drugs" or "terror" or "illiteracy" or "poverty". (And imagine how much good would come of spending as much on the war against illiteracy and poverty as is spent on an enduring occupation.) The government against which war was declared collapsed five years ago and its president is long dead. What would happen if voters across your district started calling the occupation for what it is? Would that encourage Pelosi to grow a pair before November? Or your two Dem senators even though their terms are not up?

mars phoenix says no

[Anonymous Coward]

according to the mars phoenix twitter feed (yes, it twitters), this did not happen. namely,

"Heard about the recent news reports implying I may have found Martian life. Those reports are incorrect."

and,

"Reports claiming there was a White House briefing are also untrue and incorrect."

Re:2008 just called...

[koona]

Motion seconded

[quote]Well, speaking as someone who isn't from the US, I think the rest of the world isn't going to let the US forget Bush 1 & 2. Ever.

The US inflicted him on the world, and the rest of the world does tend towards a "you break it, you bought it" policy.[/quote]

They are briefing the politicians so that...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are briefing the politicians so they can do what every politician's first objective is...to figure out how to collect taxes from these martian organisms.

I hope there is no life on Mars.

[Tekoneiric]

I for one hope they don't find any life on Mars because if they discover even a single non-Earth origin microbe it will mean the end of any possibility of colonizing or even terraforming Mars. Every religious and nature group will come out against us going to Mars for science and colonization. Plus you'll get the people fearful of Martian life getting to Earth against it too. Life on Mars would almost mean the end of Space exploration for the foreseeable future.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[luzr]

Well, as colonizing planetary bodies is the most stupid thing to do anyway, I hope they have found it:) The future is habitats, not planets. Once you have escaped one gravity well, why should you fall into another?

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[Tekoneiric]

Well gravity wells overcome a host of problems both biological and technological that space habitats have. Humans and animals can't stay in zero G for long periods. We need the stress of gravity on our bodies. People would require intense exercise on the moon or Mars to keep from loosing bone mass. They may one day overcome that with drugs or genetic engineering but they haven't yet. Atmospheres of planets or building under the regolith of a planet or moon also offer protection from radiation that space habitats don't have unless they use very expensive and massive shielding.

So, for the moment, space habitats aren't the most intelligent or economical way to go unless it's a asteroid mining colony.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[Keybounce]

Another reason for a gravity well? Ultimately, you want to grow food, and have room to spread out. Both of which require a large surface area.

Now, rings of gas ("Integral Trees"), rings of ground ("RingWorld"), and other ideas have been proposed in science fiction. But until then, you really need a natural gravity well to give you the room to live, breed, and feed.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[luzr]

Have you noticed that Mars does not have the right gravity for humans nor atmosphere, right?

Whereas achieving correct parameters in space habitat seems to be possible. And once you have those "asteroid mining colonies", habitat building material is no longer a problem.

Considering economy, notice that we have the first rather big space habitat right now, for the fraction of price that is needed to send humans to Mars.

Humans on Mars is waste of resources. I would rather see more humans on earth orbits and sending robots to asteroids.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[Tekoneiric]

The space station is a money pit. Outside of a few minor science experiments most of what goes on is just to keep it going.

Mars has all the easy accessible volatiles needed to make human breathable atmosphere. As for the gravity, it may be 1/3 G but it's enough to drastically reduce the amount of exercise needed. There is enough variation in the human species to allow us to adapt to 1/3 G. Buildings on Mars will need far fewer supports than on Earth. Even if you have the raw material available on asteroids, you still have to process it. On Mars you just build your base structure then bulldoze regolith over it or just build in a natural underground structure. Building in a small crater would simplify things too.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[Ihlosi]

Have you noticed that Mars does not have the right gravity for humans nor atmosphere, right?

Too little gravity is better than no gravity at all. With too little gravity, you can put the right load on your bones to keep them from decalcifying by just carrying some weight. You don't get that option in zero-G - even if you strap 100 kg of lead to your body, you'll still weigh 0 N.

Not to mention all the other mundane things known from Earth that will work if there's a little bit of gravity, but not in zero-G. Like toilets, showers, kitchens, beds, sinks, swimming pools, plumbing, etc.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[luzr]

Unless we learn how to process materials in space, there no point of whatever colonization.

Establishing base on Mars, ok. Then what? IMO, it would be just another moneypit, just much bigger and much further away. There is really nothing you can really do on Mars until you have materials processing capability.

OTOH, once we learn to in-space material gathering and processing, colonizing Mars is not important any more.

Also note that there is much less solar energy on Mars. Not good for processing materials as well.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[Tekoneiric]

There is plenty of solar energy on Mars. They use it to power the Mars probes and rovers. Solar energy collection systems are getting cheaper all the time. As for materials processing; that really isn't a problem on a planetary surface. Humans have been doing that for thousands of years. On a planetary surface you don't have to worry too much about containment of non-volatile materials, you just drop it in piles. Gravity does the containment.

Zero G materials processing is something we've never done. You have to worry about containment and mass of everything.

You seem to be fixated on the distance issue. The distance isn't the issue. In space it's more about how much energy you have to expend to get where you want to go. Getting colony materials out of the Earth's gravity well is most of the problem/cost. Once you've done that, getting it to Mars hardly costs a thing except a smaller amount of fuel and six months of travel time.

I suggest you read A Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin.

Re:I hope there is no life on Mars.

[luzr]

The main problems is still the same as with ISS. There is nothing really interesting in colonizing the Mars - I mean, long-term.

The only logical reason why people will *want* to *stay* in space, permanently, is when they will be able to live more comfortably in space than on Earth.

Obviously, such thing will require massive technology advancements. But once we have them, warm cosy space habitat with any (pseudo)gravity I wish fills my desires much better than some cold distant red place.

Send robots to Mars. For the money you save by NOT sending humans there, send MORE robots to other planets and asteroids. Find resource, start mining them (still using robots). That is space exploration programme that makes sense. Then, when we have automated orbital factories, in best case sort of self-reproducing, and ample materials to build with, only after then is the time for humans to go to space and STAY there.

What we will probably get instead is ISS equivalent in form of Moon base - maybe. More likely NASA will land once on Moon, then the project will be canceled because it will cost too much :(

If you want to get pedantic about terminology...

[SvnLyrBrto]

... then you're as wrong as I am.

> The government against which war was declared collapsed five years ago

Incorrect. The US never legally declared war on iraq. That's a power that *does* reside solely with the congress, and no one else. Various executive branches have undermined this, of course. We've had "conflicts" and "police actions" and "operations" and "surges" and such. But the US hasn't actually been involved in a real and legal and declared war since WW2.

cya,
john

HVT located on Mars

[Scr3wFace]

They Found Osama!
I always thought Mars looked like Afghanistan!

servant01

[servant01]

While I find this story to be somewhat interesting, My faith in modern science is rapidly waning. Far too much of today's "science" is based upon conjecture, presupposition, assumption and, bias rather than truly objective scientific method. I do hope we have learned something useful from the red planet. It is nice to see a few cogent posts regarding the subject matter. Unfortunately, they are the vast minority. I assume those who have chosen this venue to vilify certain politicians, are well acquainted with said politicians and are privy to detailed information regarding their daily duties, private conversations and, perhaps even their thoughts . To spew such vitriol without very intimate knowledge would seem to indicate a psychological problem or a diminished capacity for reason. In any case, I look forward to the announcement of the MECA discovery with some degree of anticipation.

Re:servant01

[kenp2002]

You faith in science may wane but my faith in man kind after reading all these threads save your and a few select has diminished to zero. We have truly degenerated into a bunch of thug morons. The movie Idiocracy is now a sad truth...

Re:Why don't you link to the original article?

[XNormal]

Would be nice to find a nitrogen source, then you'd have CHON, which is most of what you need to live. In the right proportions, of course.

The Martian atmosphere, perhaps? Freeze out the CO2 and 60% of the remainder is nitrogen.

What IS Life?

[WayCurious]

By what standard do we determine 'life'? How do we rationally extend that definition to the human from amphymixis to birth? How does it compare w/developmental biology and embryology definitions? (As a zoologist ... I know, I'm just curious what the people here think - esp. the bush/religion haters. The Jenna thing was funny, btw.)

Forget George Bush!

[Veggiesama]

Why doesn't NASA brief someone who might actually do something about this potentially reality-altering news? Someone like, I dunno, Will Wright?

Intelligent Life in the White House.

[eyendall]

Scientists land in Washington in search for intelligent life in the White House. Mars considered better prospect.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I never said that Europe was any better in this regard.

2) That's a constant point of philosophical debate: is it better to stand by and do nothing, or run in like Americans and make everything worse?

Re:2008 just called...

[eyendall]

If you still have to "fully formulate your opinion of Bush" then I have to pity you. What does he have to do? Eat babies?

Re:2008 just called...

[eyendall]

Just like the US stood-by between 1939 and 1941 while Hitler ravaged Europe?

SETI Post Detection Protocols

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA protocols say they have to keep it secret so you don't panic. The leadership wants to panic first in private. Then and only then can the public panic.

They are going by the books:

SETI Post Detection Protocol http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/protdet.htm

Of course, all these "let's keep things secret so public won't panic" protocols ignore the fact that an informed public is much better equipped to deal with any catastrophies things might mean.

Re:2008 just called...

[pallmall1]

Just like the US stood-by between 1939 and 1941 while Hitler ravaged Europe?

Are you suggesting that the US shood have *illegally* attacked Germany? The appeasers would not have approved.

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

a guide

Like the parts where it says you should kill your own disobedient children? The bible is a horrible, violent book. The Sunday preachers pick and choose what they tell you to suck you in

No life detected in Atacama Desert

[drerwk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Desert
The Atacama Desert is 50 times drier than Death Valley. Apparently some areas may not have seen rain in 400 years.

In 2003, a team of researchers published a report in Science magazine titled "Mars-like Soils in the Atacama Desert, Chile, and the Dry Limit of Microbial Life" in which they duplicated the tests used by the Viking 1 and Viking 2 Mars landers to detect life, and were unable to detect any signs in Atacama Desert soil.

I'd like to know what Phoenix would see in the same place.

Re:2008 just called...

[SteeldrivingJon]

"...to let you know that Bush is on his way out."

We prosecute 90 year old ex-Nazis, too. Even relatively low-level ones. It's never too late.

life code

[drjzzz]

If there is life on Mars, then the next question is whether it uses nucleic acids (DNA/RNA) for coding. All life on earth uses nucleic acids to encode genes. [Prions may be an exception to this rule but they are parasites that were originally encoded by nucleic acids and depend on nucleic acid-encoded 'hosts'.]

Core life functions are remarkably conserved on earth, e.g., human and pea (plant) histones, which are proteins that bind DNA, remain ~80% identical after a billion years or so of evolution. If extraterrestrial life has fundamentally different molecules and 'code' (e.g., non-nucleic acid genes, or different codes for amino acids, or the sequences of histone-like proteins, etc.), then life probably originated twice, independently. If instead the core functions are similar, then there was one common origin. These differences and similarities would change our estimates on the odds of life evolving independently elsewhere.

Re:2008 just called...

[zobier]

+1 Internets for you

Re:2008 just called...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and one can wished [sic] that you'd not post here anymore; it'd set a nice message [sic] for others of your ilk.

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[unity100]

you are assuming that i dont know about the age of robber barons.

that age is not relevant to this debate, because it was an age in which a few robber barons, which are extremely wealthy, were able to influence matters through their personal influence. it was more like jacob fugger being instrumental in drafting the policy of almost half of europe through Charles V he lent money to.

corporationism is much different. it does not pertain to very rich individuals you can trace the issues to. it is more pluralistic, more widespread because there is actually now a minority culture that behaves as such - its like the behavior of ants - they are weak when alone, but their synergy makes them stronger in groups.

megacorporations and corporationism are therefore indeed globalization age's products. whereas in the past, the big buck and robber barons were just similar to extremely wealthy aristocrats of the past, megacorporations are more like a social group and therefore multicultural, multilingual, multinational. makes corporationism all the more dangerous.

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[unity100]

If I understand you rightly (please verify), you are agreeing that the fundamental system is valid, but saying that it requires additional modifications to enable it to withstand the pressures of transnational corporatism.

exactly that, just like any invention mankind has made, and had to perfect with the passing of time.

But not necessarily impossible. ;) For a start, it's not a simple black and white system. It might be possible to be more explicit and vehement both in emphasising what constitutes variance from the written ...... .......f them, but I list them as illustrations of how a rule system could guard against people not paying attention to the rule-system; because that's essentially what you're asking for and it's difficult.

you need to remember that no board, no committee, no body is incorruptible. you gotta figure out a way to prevent corruption. heightened awareness level of citizens, coupled with internet and grassroots understandings, and mandatory elimination of 'national secret' concept to prevent hiding of wrongdoing may be necessary.

Don't be silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

If life is found on Mars, all of the religious groups will be pressuring us to go there so that they can proselytize to it.

In related news...

[smartyculottes]

Martians are briefed on the potential for life in the White House.

Re:In related news...

[slider3618]

Life is found in Whitehouse, but no intelligent life.

Just siphon it

[Sloppy]

I've got it: A pipeline!

Once you have the pipe installed (going straight up into the sky on both Mars and Earth), you just need to spend energy to pump it full once. Thereafter, the Earth gravity that makes it fall out of the pipe Earth, is a stronger force than the Mars gravity that resists the oil falling up into the pipe. It's a classic gravity siphon.

I leave the mechanics of building an interplanetary pipe, as a trivial exercise to others.

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[daemonburrito]

It is relevant to this statement:

[...] stuff seemed to be working 1776-1950, because globalization had not arrived by then yet [.]

Your second post is actually pretty interesting, but presents a more nuanced argument. It's just that your assertion that things were working before 1950 offends the ghosts of many economic victims, pre-globalization.

My choice of counter-example really was arbitrary. An incomplete list of other crises driven by greed: Slavery, Reconstruction, various wars of defense and of conquest, genocide (as recent as 1920 in Texas); exhaustion of timber, whale oil, and guano. There have been many.

FWIW, I think you might be mistaken about the relative sizes of the Gilded Age and the modern leisure classes; that is, I think the leisure class of the Gilded Age may have been larger than you're suggesting (there were people besides robber barons).

That said, I am terrified by corporations. I find them profoundly undemocratic, and popular culture excuses them from behaving according to any ethical or moral code ("It's their duty to maximize shareholder returns, they shouldn't be concerned with decency," is the refrain, despite it not being strictly true). That is all in addition to the usual bureaucratic shielding that organization offers ("It's company policy").

My perspective: Globalization is only superficially related to the rise of the megacorporation. Megacorporations thrive in the global scale because of anarchy. It doesn't help that every attempt at international regulation has been hijacked by ideology (the Church of Friedman, I'm looking at you) or by outright gamesmanship. IMHO, the best defense against the new corporate paradigm is citizen-of-the-world action in support of real international justice.

YMMV, of course.

Re:2008 just called...

[PopeRatzo]

If we mess up this election and John McCain becomes president, I'm giving the rest of the world permission to just go ahead and drop nukes on us and put us out of our misery.

Overall, it might make the world a better place.

They briefed the WHITE HOUSE!? w00t!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's so awesome. It must be real science now if the did that. Great news. Did they make sure the President's dog was informed? Because that's worth about as much as telling the President himself.

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[unity100]

Your second post is actually pretty interesting, but presents a more nuanced argument. It's just that your assertion that things were working before 1950 offends the ghosts of many economic victims, pre-globalization.

of course, that statement does not purports to mean that everything was perfect. it means comparably better, system not being manipulatable in the scale we know it today. with the scope of damage being localized rather than global.

FWIW, I think you might be mistaken about the relative sizes of the Gilded Age and the modern leisure classes; that is, I think the leisure class of the Gilded Age may have been larger than you're suggesting (there were people besides robber barons).

definitely. just like there were many bourgeois enjoying the pleasures of luxuries even in 10th century, when society was much more feudal in europe. but the part that interests me is the number, and the composition/nature of the influential circles. what im thinking is that, the corporationism today is much more widespread, structured, "grassroots" if you will, and far reaching than robber baron influence in 19th century.

That said, I am terrified by corporations. I find them profoundly undemocratic, and popular culture excuses them from behaving according to any ethical or moral code ("It's their duty to maximize shareholder returns, they shouldn't be concerned with decency," is the refrain, despite it not being strictly true). That is all in addition to the usual bureaucratic shielding that organization offers ("It's company policy").

feeling the same here. you can add to that list the exploitation of copyright, patents, eventually law system for shielding misdeeds.

My perspective: Globalization is only superficially related to the rise of the megacorporation. Megacorporations thrive in the global scale because of anarchy. It doesn't help that every attempt at international regulation has been hijacked by ideology (the Church of Friedman, I'm looking at you) or by outright gamesmanship. IMHO, the best defense against the new corporate paradigm is citizen-of-the-world action in support of real international justice.

i believe you are wrong in the anarchy part. because the very tool that corporationism uses to assert its power is the international treaties, organizations. for example, riaa/mpaa is trying to push the same oppressive copyright system to other countries by pressuring through WTO, or, by exploiting the administration and having them pressure other countries that u.s. makes trade treaties with. if there had been anarchy, they couldnt do that.

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[daemonburrito]

So that's the essence of our disagreement, then.

The WTO and IMF are perfect examples of the gamesmanship and orthodoxy I was talking about (respectively, pretty much). They are the opposite of the international justice I had in mind.

I don't know how much longer we can have global communication without a global legal framework (like the ICC, not the glorified Chambers of Commerce). If there was a representative global legal system, then Asia's attitude towards the new IP paradigm (i.e., a normal human being's attitude) would be known. The MPAA would have a very difficult time making the case that the world's largest film industry is doing it wrong and needs protection from people sharing stuff.

My feeling is that if we abdicate our responsibility to build a good system, we allow the corporations to build it for us. A system will emerge (barring a new dark age), and it will either be written by people who care (us, apparently) or militant trade associations and corporations.

Good talk.

Re:there is your flaw, and your culprit :

[unity100]

yes but the system is already upon us. so what to do.

saturday morning briefing

[moskrin]

They actually just showed him some old Bugs & Marvin cartoons

Re:2008 just called...

[Lars T.]

Just like the US stood-by between 1939 and 1941 while Hitler ravaged Europe?

Are you suggesting that the US shood have *illegally* attacked Germany? The appeasers would not have approved.

The only "appeasers" were the US.