Slashdot Mirror
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."
Would you pass up such a golden opportunity for a large-scale, manned mission to Mars?
Is it really any wonder that elected officials care nothing for the opinions of the masses?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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?
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.
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
Imagine briefing unintelligent life about the discovery of unintelligent life.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
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?
While i realize you are just bush-bashing, that same statement holds true for a surprisingly large number of humans.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
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.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
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.
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.
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.
While i realize you are just bush-bashing, that same statement holds true for a surprisingly large number of humans.
... that concerns me a lot more than the possibility of microbes on Mars.
Yes
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
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.
Camping on quad since 1996.
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.
This guy's the limit!
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.
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.
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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 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?
Insightful = funny + karma.
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?
Scorta futuere amo!
"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.
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?
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.
NO SIG
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...
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.
We are all just people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
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.
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.
Read radical news here
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.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right. Absence of evidence is evidence of guilt. Gotcha.
By the way, stop torturing illegal immigrants. It's not right.
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?
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)
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....
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.
This space available.
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.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
"...except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchill, November 11, 1947
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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.
This is my sig.
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
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
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.
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.