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."

12 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. will this also mean... by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 0, Troll

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

  2. Bush Briefing - Mr. President, we found them by terjeber · · Score: -1, Troll

    ...all the WMDs that Sadddam had, he had them stashed away on Mars.

    The entire world is shaking now, they all know for sure that whatever country The Bushman is talking about next will be accused of ferrying Saddam's WMDs to Mars and thereby a part of the Axis of Evildoers. I have it on high authority that the most likely candidates are, in a particular, but very secret, order - Belgium, Ecuador, San Marino, Togo, Bhutan and Sweden.

    Currently the Bushman is strategizing with his buddies trying to find out which of these are most easily reached by bombers. Obviously, whichever is more convenient to bomb must be the guilty party. God in is infinite retardedness wouldn't have created the latest country to join the Axis of Evildoers in an inconvenient location. So, whichever is closer to our bombers it is - res ipsa loquitur

  3. Re:Phoenix capabilities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    RTFA

  4. /. becoming a political blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    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.

  5. "I say we take off.." by RevWaldo · · Score: 1, Troll

    "..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?"

  6. Finally we know... by gros+calice · · Score: 0, Troll

    The face on mars is a real man!

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

  7. Re:Short briefing by Sebilrazen · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.

    --
    "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  8. Why by kenp2002 · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  9. Re:Big and black by delong · · Score: -1, Troll

    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.

    This is so laughably a paranoid fiction that is beyond rebuttal.

  10. Re:2008 just called... by smack.addict · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.

  11. oops by daemonburrito · · Score: -1, Troll

    I suck cocks.

    I see that h4rm0ny was talking about telco immunity... For some reason I thought you were talking about the recent FCC decision. Reading comprehension FTW.

    Sorrysorrysorry

    1. Re:oops by h4rm0ny · · Score: 0, Troll

      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.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.