Slashdot Mirror


Making It Hard For Extraterrestrials To Hear Us

quaith writes "US astronomer Frank Drake has told scientists at a special SETI meeting in London that earthlings are making it less likely that we will be heard in space. In the past, we used huge ground stations to broadcast radio and television signals which could be picked up relatively easily — according to astronomers' calculations anyway. Now we use satellites that transmit at 75 watts and point toward Earth instead of into space. In addition, we've switched to digital which makes the transmissions even fainter. Drake has concluded that very soon, in space no one will hear us at all. I guess we'd better keep listening."

374 comments

  1. Not news by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This issue was already known to Drake when he formulated his famous equation -- a key parameter is the time window during which a civilisation is broadcasting radio signals.

    1. Re:Not news by Da+Cheez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct me if I'm wrong (I very well may be; I'm not overly familiar with the Drake equation), but doesn't that broadcasting time apply mainly to before a civilization has the technology to broadcast? What about when they still broadcast, but in such a way that their signals don't pollute deep space? Is that taken into account?

    2. Re:Not news by Supurcell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So even if we do happen to pick up radio signals from the 100 or so year window, during which aliens would be broadcasting radio waves, by the time we hear them, they could have been long extinct due to some catastrophe.

    3. Re:Not news by Mashhaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why the Drake equation never did seem to make much sense to me.

      Given the rapid advancement of telecommunications technology we've observed, to me it seems entirely possible that a civilization a few hundred or thousand years beyond ours might not even be using a technology analogous to RF transmission. Entanglement, gravitation manipulation, something entirely different?

      We can only imagine, because who can say what discoveries the future will hold, but you can be damn sure that a thousand years from now we'll be using something different than we are now. The Drake equation always seem to me to require the presupposition that a far advanced extraterrestrial civilization would be using the equivalent of.. cosmic flag semaphore, or smoke signals.

    4. Re:Not news by BryanL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but the assumption was that civilizations stopped broadcasting into space because they ceased to exist. Now we can think, maybe there are civilizations out there that are extant, but past the point of radio broadcasts. This is good news if we hope that intelligent life is still out there.

    5. Re:Not news by l2718 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the assumption was that civilizations stopped broadcasting into space because they ceased to exist.

      Was it really? It doesn't sound credible to assume that ET civilisations would transmit strong radio signals throughout their existence. The question always was about the time period between discovery of radio and the transition to a more advanced technology.

    6. Re:Not news by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Good! Less Covenant ships to worry about

    7. Re:Not news by pengin9 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes xkcd says it best yet again.

    8. Re:Not news by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last factor in the equation is L, the length of time a civilization broadcasts radio waves into space.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    9. Re:Not news by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Reading the wikipedia page further, it seems like his understanding of L is that it represented how long a technological society would be capable of broadcasting into space. So it seems like he didn't actually consider that as technology advanced civilizations would significantly reduce the amount of stray emissions. As a result his guess for L was around 10000, a few orders of magnitude off it would seem.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:Not news by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      His guess was that the broadcasts would last for 10,000 years. So yeah, he was thinking the radio emissions would last as long as the civilization was capable of producing them.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    11. Re:Not news by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Right, but I am pretty sure the assumption was that this length of time is generally a lot longer than it actually has been for us... for the simple reason that ubiquitous low-power transmission was not foreseen as a partial replacement for centralized, high-power transmission.

    12. Re:Not news by bahbar · · Score: 1

      The "subtitle" is spot on: > But seriously, there's loads of intelligent life. It's just not screaming constantly in all directions on the handful of frequencies we search.

    13. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should build a hyperwave caster and set it up on the moon.

    14. Re:Not news by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other thing to consider is how many even bother with EM transmission instead of using wires or tubes.

    15. Re:Not news by Kjella · · Score: 1

      As a result his guess for L was around 10000, a few orders of magnitude off it would seem.

      Assuming they didn't do digital before radio, or don't significantly use huge broadcasters at all (fiber optics + local wireless anyone?) or any one of the other million assumptions to make L > 0 in the first place. But instead instead assume that soon we'll start finding Earth-size exoplanets and when we do I'm sure we'll leave a satellite dish in that direction listening for any signals of any sort. I would think that any other species that discover a planet similar to their own would do the same. That could easily last 10000 years before we'd give up.

      All it takes then is for one of us to send a ping, I'm assuming with a directed beam we could make it orders of magnitudes stronger than a random TV broadcast, something simple yet clearly artificial. And I don't think we should be that concerned about alien invasion, if they can see our planet - which seems easier than picking up a radio signal, then they can analyze the orbit and the atmospheric composition. They could be more likely to want to colonize an planet apparently uninhabited by intelligent life like settlers than trying to take over one, I think even here on Earth we'd jump more at the chance of "Earth 2" than starting an all out war - and losing the planet really is all out.

      And ultimately, this doesn't really influence the number of civilizations in the galaxy, only if we can find them or not. If anything, it says that there could be a lot more hiding out there that we don't hear from.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can't be damn sure. It's possible that there are more efficient means of communication, but at present state of knowledge all available evidence indicates that entanglement cannot be used to transmit any information, that gravitation manipulation is extremely difficult and that there are no long-distance forces beyond the ones we know, leaving electromagnetic radiation as the most likely choice. Of course we have to keep working to uncover more evidence and finding out new means of communication would be wonderful, but we cannot count on them.

    17. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more likely, the fact they're -intelligent- makes them do their best to avoid this monkey infested backwater... :)

    18. Re:Not news by hitmark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i would say we humans have actually increased our use of EM transmissions the last couple of decades. But said transmissions are shorter range then the EM thats been broadcasting since the start of the 1900's.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    19. Re:Not news by jibjibjib · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why do people keep suggesting entanglement as a future communication technology? It doesn't transmit any information. (And if you say "But what if it does and we don't know yet?" then you're not talking about entanglement, you're talking about some random undiscovered physics and using the wrong word for it.)

    20. Re:Not news by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Civilizations that have moved far beyond radio for their own use will still understand that radio is an easily discovered, created, and maintained technology with great range and excellent economy. If such a civilization were to wish to keep track of emerging civilizations (a good idea, as the earlier it is done, the less dangerous they will be), they would keep radio reception going. Given our knowledge of physics, it seems that radio is as fast as anything can be - light speed - and so it would provide as quick a "heads-up" as anything else.

      Radio transmission presumes they want to contact us. The only observation I can make here is that aside from a few, seriously underfunded and rather pitiful attempts, we're not trying to contact anyone else, though we certainly could be, technically speaking. Assuming that some other civilization wants us to find them... that may be the problem.

      Of course, if a civilization is up to creating an optical telescope of multiple light years across using aperture synthesis... they can just watch us (time delayed), if they're close enough. Sounds impossible - and it is, for us at the moment - but any civilization that can start an automated process and has a few systems worth of raw material to draw upon should be able to do it, given time.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    21. Re:Not news by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Be sure to broadcast all the information that was included on the Voyager probes... you know, like our physiology and location... it's hard to plan a menu if you don't know what you will be using as the entree. Hey, we could end up as the secret ingredient on some sort of galactic "Iron Chief" program!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    22. Re:Not news by frieko · · Score: 2, Informative

      Digital wires interfere with each other via RF. There's no way to make a DSP chip complex enough to do digital voice or video without first having a very firm grasp of RF. Meaning "primitive" digital transmissions would be on-off keying at 100 baud or something like that. Which is as detectable from space as AM radio.

    23. Re:Not news by Aging_Newbie · · Score: 1

      Communication by entanglement always reminds me of an "urban legend" during the last part of the cold war. The legend goes as follows. In their attempt to investigate psychic phenomena, the obviously evil and unspeakably nasty Russians took two rabbits, litter-mates, and separated them. One went for a one-way ride on a submarine while the other had electrodes attached to his head for EEG measurements. Then, at a randomly selected time known only to the submariners, the baby rabbit was brutally murdered to make a brief but very strong impression on its psyche. It turns out that the brainwaves of the other rabbit responded at exactly the time of the murder. Obviously entanglement in its almost purest form. Strangely enough, successful replications of the study were never reported.

      This story served two purposes. By that time, people were beginning to suspect that Russians were just folks, maybe even like us. One purpose was to keep the people in line by showing just how nasty the adversary was. The second was to pollute their minds with pseudoscience to keep them from ever thinking in a rational, even skeptical manner. Otherwise, they would not be quite so easy to manipulate. Does that sound familiar? Things never change.

    24. Re:Not news by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Let's see here. We've been using radio for a little over a century for communication. Now we're quickly reaching the point where the use of low-power devices means what we "leak" into space is going to be radically reduced.

      So let's assume that any technologically advanced civilization follows the same route. There's this narrow window to pick up broadcasts, and then it's over. A century is nothing in those terms.

      Yes, I realize that part of the expectation is they're going to do some powerful transmissions to be heard, but it's my understanding that we haven't even done that many of those.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    25. Re:Not news by rworne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A great book on the early discovery of sentient species by a superior species:

      The Killing Star

      Relativistic weapons impacting earth from outer space with Michael Jackson's "We are the world" warbling in over all the radio frequencies.

      Great book.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    26. Re:Not news by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why the Drake equation is correct, but useless. Every factor in it is a guess that slides along a scale from "observational estimates" to "wild assed". And by careful selection of just the right guesses, you can come up with a number that suggests dumping truckloads of money into SETI is worth it. But any one of those numbers can skew N to less than one in a heartbeat.

      And now, with just one the values that they based the decision to build SETI on reduced by three orders of magnitude, based on just 50 years of observation, that means that the wilder guesses could be even worse than they imagined.

      SETI is a waste of money and resources. Participating in it is like participating in the lottery, only with a higher cost of entry and a lower chance of payoff.

      --
      John
    27. Re:Not news by domatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Parent post is making a Star Control 2 reference.

    28. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spin orientation isn't information? When the spin of one entangled particle changes, the spin of it partner instantly changes to match it. That's enough to "transmit" binary "info".

      cheers :)

    29. Re:Not news by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      No. When the spin of the first particle is "measured", the spin of the second particle will be the same. But you have no control whatsoever over the outcome of the first spin measurement, and no way to control the second particle. The entanglement only depends on the two particles starting out with the same quantum state. If you change the state of particle 1 to have some control on the outcome of the spin measurement, then the particles no longer have the same state, and are no longer "entangled".

      It's like I seal the same secret message in two envelopes and hand them off to two people. When they open the envelopes they will both read the same message. But if one person writes something down on their message, the second person will not receive it.

    30. Re:Not news by turgid · · Score: 1

      You presuppose that an advanced civilisation would not deliberately broadcast radio signals for others to detect?

      As another poster has mentioned, a very advanced civilisation would realise that radio technology is cheap and simple so new technological civilisations are very likely to discover it early on (as did our own).

      Not only would they therefore be trying to detect radio broadcasts from space, but I'm sure they might do some deliberate broadcasting of their own towards likely stars, in the hope ob being detected.

    31. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qubits can be passed via entanglement, so you're wrong. Mod this guy down.

    32. Re:Not news by similar_name · · Score: 1

      This is why the Drake equation never did seem to make much sense to me.

      The equation or one of it's variables?

      The Drake equation always seem to me to require the presupposition that a far advanced extraterrestrial civilization would be using the equivalent of.. cosmic flag semaphore, or smoke signals.

      To me it just seemed to take into account some kind of communications window. Are you just disagreeing with the size of that window? As our own technology increases do you think SETI will stop looking for 'old tech' signals?

    33. Re:Not news by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I bet he didn't factor DRM into the equation. Even if we find a radio signal, it's not guaranteed that the key server will still be up.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    34. Re:Not news by tftp · · Score: 1

      We've been using radio for a little over a century for communication. Now we're quickly reaching the point where the use of low-power devices means what we "leak" into space is going to be radically reduced.

      Leakage into space is waste. As the civilization matures it finds ways to minimize waste. That's why we use antennas that have carefully shaped diagrams, frequencies and modulations that carry maximum information, and just enough power to ensure reliable communication. This is partly driven by the fact that our cell phones don't have much power. And majority of our long-haul communications are done in wire (or glass.) What wireless channels we still have, they are mostly microwave links to and from satellites, very wideband, using high gain / narrow beam antennas, and again using just enough power for reliable communication. If we want we can have radios (DSSS) with signals that are completely buried in the noise, and that can be only received by another radio of the same type and using the same code.

    35. Re:Not news by tftp · · Score: 1

      You presuppose that an advanced civilisation would not deliberately broadcast radio signals for others to detect?

      I'd expect it to NOT broadcast. There is one simple reason - you never know who is going to receive those signals. Are you willing to bet the existence of your civilization on the theory that all civilizations are peaceful? We are the proof of the opposite.

      a very advanced civilisation would realise that radio technology is cheap and simple

      ... and that the radio propagates with just the light speed. Which means by the time they receive the signal that "young" civilization can already have FTL ships and be knocking on their doors, with peace or with war in mind. That's hardly smart if you have FTL yourself. An advanced civilization can afford to send a probe into many star systems; these probes then can do monitoring and reporting by FTL channels. Further observers can be always sent if necessary.

      I'm sure they might do some deliberate broadcasting of their own towards likely stars, in the hope ob being detected.

      Why would an advanced civilization "hope" that a young one developed tools to receive those signals? What is the benefit? The older civilization gains nothing, other than a new article in their Encyclopedia Galactica. The younger civilization, having no FTL, will probably go crazy. You can't maintain a dialog over the radio on the scale of the galaxy, the radio is too slow for that. Imagine that we received today a message from the stars, and the message says "Hi!" - what will happen to the world? And I'm very much unsure that the older civilization will be quick to send us the FTL formulas; likely it will require a lot of science before we can understand them, and without the common language it's hard to achieve. But the older civilization must also consider that we can receive and understand FTL, and then immediately make a weapon out of it. Knowing earthlings, it's a certainty.

      As I mentioned earlier, the only sane way to use radio would be for the older civilization to monitor the stars (using probes or listening directly from their homeworld.) Once signals are received, an FTL ship with scientists should be sent to that star system to investigate and decide if the new one can be trusted with the contact.

    36. Re:Not news by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, there is also the assumption that other civilizations will advance at approximately the same rate as ours. Is there any reason why the "radio age" of other civilizations couldn't last thousands or even millions of years, therefore greatly increasing the changes we'd detect them?

    37. Re:Not news by qubezz · · Score: 1

      This message translated from the original German...

      Dear Earth Peoples,

      Thank you for the informative gift of your photons from universe age 13 billion earth years. We had to drive all over our galaxy to collect the photons but we put your message back together. We learn a lot of your culture.

      To send this reply, we use time machine to modulate one of our pulsars, from what you think is edge of universe at universe age 1 billion. 100 baud is funny joke that makes my jogmook wiggle - pulsar modulation for communication is 8^-12 baud but message goes very far. Haha. Maybe it takes you 70 earth years to receive message? Time machine fixes communication latency though.

      We like your message. We also like to make rockets. We also have lottery every 100 Klagmar years to cull dumbest 90% of population. We would like to be friends. Hopefully when you invent time machine you can modulate a proto-star and send us back the recipe for your bratwurst. We have no earth cows but maybe we can make it from Klagmar Zhukoom.

      From the cjicia of:
      Blaaeerg Greeezxx of Klagmar 7
      Ambassador of extra-galaxy cuisine

    38. Re:Not news by turgid · · Score: 1

      We have absolutely no evidence that FTL travel or communication is possible. There is no evidence in nature itself and there is no evidence of alien civillisations having developed FTL travel. Our theories of Physics do not predict the possibility of FTL travel.

      Therefore, we are highly unlikely to be targeted by some evil alien race for target practice, food or Lebensraum.

      Merely getting from there to here would consume so much energy that there would be no point in plundering any physical resources from Earth. It would be much cheaper simply to produce them at home.

      As for the futility of communicating with aliens slowly over vast distances, I think you are being unreasonably pessimistic. The mere discovery of the existence of intelligent alien life would be of vast benefit to our science and philosophy. We could communicate with aliens slowly over many decades. Although a two-way conversation would be difficult, we could constantly stream information about our science and culture to them, and them to us. Any fool can see that both sides would stand to benefit immensely.

      Xenophobia is misplaced in this situation.

    39. Re:Not news by qubezz · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like if I put the message 'yes' in one envelope, and 'no' in the other envelope and mixed them up.

      You take one envelope, and your buddy takes the other envelope. When you open your envelope, you now know immediately what is in the other envelope miles away. However, there is no useful communication taking place between either envelope owner. I am just fancy when I call the envelopes with unknown contents a superposition.

    40. Re:Not news by tftp · · Score: 1

      We have absolutely no evidence that FTL travel or communication is possible.

      Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

      Our theories of Physics do not predict the possibility of FTL travel.

      They don't predict many things. Our theories are incomplete, full of major assumptions, and still there are so many of them. The hope is that LHC will weed some out by proving them wrong. But we are not yet at the stage where we can definitively proclaim that FTL travel or messaging is impossible. Near-instant communication that we enjoy today would be a preposterous impossibility to a medieval king because no horse can run that fast.

      Today we have theories that challenge some foundations. For example, this paper points out that if the speed of gravity were to be limited to 1c then our Solar system (just as all other) would spiral into the Sun pretty fast. It turns out, orbital mechanics calculations use infinite speed of gravity, and Pluto always "knows" exactly and instantly where the Sun is - not where it used to be hours ago. This is a very interesting paper.

      Merely getting from there to here would consume so much energy

      An ideal round trip in a potential field consumes zero energy. A pendulum can swing for a very long time, limited only by losses in the thread. Our rockets consume a lot of energy just because they are so incredibly inefficient.

      About slow communications. I am indeed pessimistic about prospects of communicating if FTL messaging is proven to be impossible. There would be very little reason for dissimilar civilizations to spend vast resources on talking over light years and centuries of round trip time. If you want to ask "do you have antigravity?" it will require you a millennium to establish the dictionary, then ask the question and then to receive a response. Probably by that time you could figure it out yourself. And the answer would be probably already superceded by the newest research done at either end.

      You do mention the continuous streaming of knowledge, and that might work, but it depends on willingness to spend considerable energy on an exchange that you will gain little out of (if you are an advanced civ.) Earth has nothing to say, except basics of our life.

      Xenophobia is misplaced in this situation.

      I only described concerns that would be valid if we encountered a version of our own civilization. To dismiss those concerns you need to show that our civilization is unusually violent and bloodthirsty. And I see nothing particularly unusual in how we developed so far. At every moment of our history our civilization was acting pretty logically for their time. There was no divine enlightenment, for example, no black monolith with 1x4x9 proportions - we arose from animals by just being more violent and more smart, and taking our time.

    41. Re:Not news by turgid · · Score: 1

      Today we have theories that challenge some foundations. For example, this paper [metaresearch.org] points out that if the speed of gravity were to be limited to 1c then our Solar system (just as all other) would spiral into the Sun pretty fast. It turns out, orbital mechanics calculations use infinite speed of gravity, and Pluto always "knows" exactly and instantly where the Sun is - not where it used to be hours ago. This is a very interesting paper.

      It's interesting if you like a good laugh.

      Merely getting from there to here would consume so much energy

      An ideal round trip in a potential field consumes zero energy. A pendulum can swing for a very long time, limited only by losses in the thread. Our rockets consume a lot of energy just because they are so incredibly inefficient.

      Right, right, wrong.

      You do mention the continuous streaming of knowledge, and that might work, but it depends on willingness to spend considerable energy on an exchange that you will gain little out of (if you are an advanced civ.) Earth has nothing to say, except basics of our life.

      Broadcasting an analogue radio signal is simple and relatively cheap.

    42. Re:Not news by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The last factor in the equation is L, the length of time a civilization broadcasts radio waves into space.

      Which can be achieved in several ways - the civilisation could blow itself to smithereens, or just back to the stone age ("Keep banging the rocks together, guys!" to quote DNA) ; the civilization could move onto a less polluting transmission technology (as this article seems ot be discussing ; I heard the story from a different source) ; they could decide that they don't need this high-tech stuff and retire to a life of bucolic relaxation.
      But since Drake's intention was to quantify the degrees of ignorance that we have about the number of civilisations within reasonable reach of the Earth which we could hear. So the ones that are not using "eavesdroppable" technologies are excluded from the discussion at the start.
      Non-story, if you read the original articles Drake wrote back in the early 1960s. Which no-one does, more fool them.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Sufficiently Advanced by Da+Cheez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if a sufficiently advanced civilization (like ours) eventually develops radio technology that doesn't get far beyond their own planet, could this severely limit how much we would detect from other planets in the way of radio signals?

    1. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, could you say that again?

    2. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by nicc777 · · Score: 1

      That was exactly my first thought as well.

      --
      Need an ISP in South Africa?
    3. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

      Probably from the POV of even more advanced civilization radio is too archaic (like smoke signals for us) and for interstellar communications they use something we just didn't discover yet.

    4. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Imagine a sphere of radio transmissions expanding at the speed of light from every civilized planet - sooner or later these are going to permeate space, so if you can't detect anything it starts to look a bit odd.

      Now imagine that civilizations typically switch to non-broadcast and/or digital signals (the latter, if efficiently compressed, will "sound" like random noise) within a century of inventing radio. Instead of spheres, space will be full of 100 light year thick "shells" of easily detectable signals. So its far more likely that we find ourselves in one of the gaps between shells.

      Of course, the Drake equation/Fermi paradox ideas are only plausibility arguments, make all sorts of assumptions about how civilizations develop based on extrapolation from one data point (us).

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    5. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That is all.

    6. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hefty signals we do broadcast, and most certainly will for a long time to come, are the radar signals used for planetary and asteroid studies. The Arecibo radar could be detected (by us) at 1000 light years (or so I've read). It's a reasonable thing to assume other civilizations will be using radar to probe their solar systems and that it's possible we could detect those.

    7. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who have received the signals to date haven't bothered to respond, as they found the reality shows on TV too stupid, thinking us absolute bumbling idiots.

      And this assumes there is intelligent life out there that is capable of communicating with humans.

      Of course, wouldn't it be ironic if the RF we send out hoping to contact other worlds was detected as a type of DDOS, jamming frequencies they use for movement or some such.

    8. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a sphere of radio transmissions expanding at the speed of light from every civilized planet - sooner or later these are going to permeate space, so if you can't detect anything it starts to look a bit odd.

      Do you know about inverse-square laws? Also the assumption of a spherical output is a bit flawed too.

      At astronomical ranges, 99% of signals from the Earth are going to be indistinguishable from background noise.

      Either that or aliens are trying to crack my WPA.

      Scroogle Edgar Mitchell...an astronaut who says we have already been visited numerous times.....

  3. This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It reduces the probability that earth could be quickly located.

    We gotta consider the possibility, that any extraterrestrials close enough to hear our signals in any reasonable amount of time, and with the sophistication to pinpoint us....

    Might have the technology and desire to invade earth.

    E.g. Consider earth itself... fast forward a few dozen generations...... massive overpopulation, lack of resources, land, severe overcrowding.

    Extreme desire for another habitable place to live.

    And then you detect an alien signal.. a foreign world. You step foot there, and you're greeted by basically an aboriginal species (compared to your civilization).

    Habitable world, massive resources, very primitive 21st-century level technology, nothing compared to your 23rd century tech.

    Oh.... so some colonists start travelling from earth to 'the new world' for a better life.

    Settlers VS the Natives all over again.

    It's happened before, it could happen again. Except us earth inhabitants could be the primitive natives / "Indians" / etc.

    Scary, huh? :)

    1. Re:This has its perks by nitro316 · · Score: 2, Funny

      James Cameron? Is that you?

    2. Re:This has its perks by grouchomarxist · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would be easier for us to inhabit the Moon or Mars or the oceans or underground or where ever than to go to a new solar system. I imagine that by the time a civilization has the power to go to another solar system for colonization issues of overcrowding would be overcome by technology. If they can get here they'll probably either come for research or just to fuck with us.

    3. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that was a very scary proposition, back in the 19th century when that was an original idea. Its the fucking 21st century mother fucka! Recognize!

    4. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Any civilization advanced enough to send an invasion force would most likely have the technology to resolve the contents of the earths atmosphere from great distances. Being scared of invasion does not buy much.

    5. Re:This has its perks by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      [Aliens] might have the technology and desire to invade earth.

      Not if they have any economic sense in their heads. Unless the aliens have some sort of magic infinite energy source or teleportation device, the cost of transporting an invasion fleet to another solar system would be orders of magnitude higher than the value of anything they could possibly gain from Earth. And if they do have an infinite energy source or teleportation device, then they could use those inventions to provide for their needs directly, without leaving their home.

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The trouble with the moon or mars, is they don't have a breathable atmosphere: it would be dangerous to live there (due to no electromagnetic field or protections against cosmic rays, rocks hitting the planet, etc), and they are not very habitable worlds.

      It's conceivable people could try to live there, but there would almost certainly be more volunteers to go live in a slightly less-hostile environment.

      I wouldn't assume (so readily) that extraterrestrials are necessarily outside the solar system. Even the solar system is a big place, and there may be some habitable moon unaccounted for.

      I also wouldn't assume their navigational capabilities or ease of travelling from another system are as poor as ours.

      They may have some mode of transporation that enables them to accomplish with ease, what would be impossible for current human tech.

      I have my doubts that technology is able to negate overcrowding issues.

      When you run out of space on your planet, you run out of space. It's unlikely that even advanced technology would allow extraterrestrials to construct new planets or make worlds with no usable atmosphere habitable.

      Underground living might be possible, but even that has certain feasibility limits.

    7. Re:This has its perks by cetialphav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine that by the time a civilization has the power to go to another solar system for colonization issues of overcrowding would be overcome by technology.

      I'm sure the Native Americans that occupied North America would have thought that about the Europeans, too.

      It is really hard to make any assumptions about why aliens might show up on our doorstep. There are logical explanations for why a peaceful, curious society would make the journey, but there are equally logical explanations for a hostile society. Certainly, the ability to develop long distance space travel means that a society has a high level of organization and cooperation. But we have seen that here on earth with both the United States and Nazi Germany. We also know that military conflict can be a great motivator to developing some kinds of technology, so visitors to earth might arrive in warships.

      The bottom line is we just don't know and no explanation seems any more plausible than any others.

    8. Re:This has its perks by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      Unless they invade so they can suck our brains with a straw. Which case that would be for both entertainment and economic reasons.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    9. Re:This has its perks by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Not if they have any economic sense in their heads. Unless the aliens have some sort of magic infinite energy source or teleportation device,

      Well, magic isn't totally out of the question - any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic, and any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:This has its perks by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Interstellar space is even more inhospitable than the moon or Mars. If you've developed technology where you can live in tin can for extended periods of time and travel light years across the galaxy, then living on a place like the moon or Mars is relatively easy.

      Once we develop such a technology the only need is to collect raw materials. There isn't really a need to settle on a planet because the spaceship would be a more hospitable place than any alien world.

    11. Re:This has its perks by bhartman34 · · Score: 1

      Unless the aliens have some sort of magic infinite energy source or teleportation device, the cost of transporting an invasion fleet to another solar system would be orders of magnitude higher than the value of anything they could possibly gain from Earth.

      Doesn't that assume minimal technological progress? It could be that the cost of transporting an invasion fleet great distances could be much less for a sufficiently advanced civilization. Technology has a way of becoming cheaper over time.

      I kind of agree with your general conclusion, though: If we do get invaded, it will probably be for entertainment purposes. The distance between us and the prospective invaders is almost certainly sufficient that they could acquire whatever they needed from a more local planet (unless there's some unique property to human beings that they need -- but I sincerely doubt that, given the fact that the elements in our bodies seem to be readily available elsewhere in the universe).

    12. Re:This has its perks by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      you haven't thought this out. energy isn't the only resource they might require (too much peak oil bunk you've been reading i suspect). a habitable planet is worth a lot more then just energy. even a huge energy source is useless if you don't have air to breath.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    13. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm presuming the extraterrestrials have developed technology to travel between galaxies in a few months or less.

      I wouldn't expect a space ship to be usable as a comfortable living environment for extended periods of time.

    14. Re:This has its perks by Supurcell · · Score: 1

      Unless every room was a holodeck.

    15. Re:This has its perks by Exception+Duck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe they wouldn't need a big fleet.

      just one virus

      or nanobots - grey goo us all...

      to stop the pink goo*

      *: Pink Goo is mankind. It replicates relatively slowly, but some people think it will nevertheless fill any amount of space given enough time. In the pink goo worldview the spread of humanity is a catastrophe and space exploration opens up the possibility of the entire galaxy or the universe getting filled up with Pink Goo - the ultimate crime, something to be stopped at any cost.

    16. Re:This has its perks by pydev · · Score: 1

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      You're thinking "Mars Attacks". But an invasion might consist of a bit of nanotechnology together with some retroviruses and parasites. That's possibly only a gram of payload.

    17. Re:This has its perks by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      If they can get here they'll probably either come for research or just to fuck with us.

      So, you're saying we're either Wikipedia or /b/?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    18. Re:This has its perks by j_sp_r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they need "Lebensraum", because there are not many planets that sustain life?

    19. Re:This has its perks by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Between galaxies in a few months??? I dare say you're presuming a bit much there. Just for reference, the nearest galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    20. Re:This has its perks by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

      Slaves.

    21. Re:This has its perks by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      It reduces the probability that earth could be quickly located.

      Good, ever heard of Lamb civilisations and Wolf civilisations. We're a lamb civilisation chained to a gravity well bleating in the dark 'come and eat us wolves'. I'm glad we're learning how to be quiet.

      Extreme desire for another habitable place to live.

      Or a Wolf civilisation doesn't want competition for resources from another (potentially) star faring race that may itself become a Wolf. Hasn't anyone read Greg Bear's The Forge of God. There is no need for any contact, any sufficiently advanced civilisation could achieve complete destruction of a target race without even knowing they have done it.

      It's happened before, it could happen again. Except us earth inhabitants could be the primitive natives / "Indians" / etc.

      Yeah well one things for certain, I doubt you would need to use a shuttle full of explosives to do it, just push a big rock from somewhere in orbit and calculate where you want it to land. Then say to the natives - "how terrible - how can we help you? BTW - stay away from _BIG_HOLE_ as it is very dangerous - We will send machines in there to 'clean it up'". Still I suppose they needed a plot line that Joe Public could understand.

      Mass drivers from orbit people, once you have the high ground you hold *all* the aces.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    22. Re:This has its perks by kitezh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are other galaxies closer than Andromeda. The Small Magellanic Cloud is a dwarf galaxy, located only 200,000 light years away. The Large Magellanic Cloud is 160,000 ly, and there are two others even closer (also dwarf galaxies), with the closest only 25,000 ly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_Major_Dwarf_Galaxy) from Earth.

    23. Re:This has its perks by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      You're right, but 25,000 light-years is still not going to be traversable in months.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    24. Re:This has its perks by bazorg · · Score: 1

      the only thing they might outweigh the cost of that invasion is staying permanently in the invaded planet. There are plenty of films about that :)

    25. Re:This has its perks by dragisha · · Score: 1

      If they invade it can be preemption. Seeing our broadcasts they will learn nothing flattering about us. They can come just to make sure we will not come first. Or they can send some kind of planet/sun killer. It would be cheaper alternative.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    26. Re:This has its perks by thenickdude · · Score: 1

      The value of Earth is in its information content, not its materials. I imagine you could sell the details on an entire alien ecosystem for a high price in an information society.

    27. Re:This has its perks by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      You can't know. It certainly isn't with our current knowledge about space travel. But if you somehow find a way to overcome the "light speed problem" (be it an Alcubierre drive or some other piece of obscure technology), who knows how fast you'll actually be able to go.

      Take a look at "ordinary" flight. Not too long ago, it was deemed completely impossible, and with our lack of knowledge about physics, nobody had a clue how it could be feasible - but eventually, someone did it. Technology is progressing faster and faster - who knows what we'll be capable of in 50, 100 or 200 years?

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    28. Re:This has its perks by arevos · · Score: 1

      That sounds even more expensive and even more worthless than invasion.

    29. Re:This has its perks by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      you haven't thought this out. energy isn't the only resource they might require (too much peak oil bunk you've been reading i suspect). a habitable planet is worth a lot more then just energy. even a huge energy source is useless if you don't have air to breath.

      Who says they breathe air?

      In any event, given enough energy you can fix your own planet without difficulty, and terraform a new one almost as easily. On our own planet, for example, we could easily build massive machines to extract CO2 and pollutants from the atmosphere in order to keep it in an optimum balance, but the amount of resources we'd consume in the process makes the proposition impractical. However, such a scheme would be a lot cheaper than trying to build an interstellar attack fleet, and then trying to move 6 billion people to a new planet.

    30. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      [insert tentacle rape mental image]

    31. Re:This has its perks by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You're thinking "Mars Attacks". But an invasion might consist of a bit of nanotechnology together with some retroviruses and parasites. That's possibly only a gram of payload.

      Uhuh. And then they do .... what, exactly? If we're talking about economic incentive, they still need to send massive ships here, load them up, and then get them back home. Or at the very least they need to send a few hundred thousand colonists plus enough factory ships to get a decent colony started. Throwing a magical "nanotechnology" thingy into the mix doesn't really change anything.

    32. Re:This has its perks by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      Life reproduces itself not for economic reasons either.
      Expansion is one of the basic principles of any life form. That's how humans populated the Earth, that's why we are dreaming of populating other planets. Populate as many niches as you can so if a part of you population is being exterminated by some catastrophe, your specie would not extinct.

    33. Re:This has its perks by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Unless they invade so they can suck our brains with a straw.

      Unless we're really unlucky and they pick up NPR or BBC Radio 4 first, they won't find much on radio that will make our brains sound appetizing...

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    34. Re:This has its perks by garompeta · · Score: 1
      I think we are all missing the point. If a civilization is capable of making a portal to teleport instantly to any place in the universe and having ships with crazy advanced technology, wouldn't be logical that they are capable and have enough dominion over the physical realm? Then, it wouldn't be that hard for them to transmute matter and make water from any other atomic element, or air, or whatever they want or need.

      We are in the XXI century just are beginning to see the Fusion Reactor (literally having a little sun in our cities), an era of limitless and cheap electricity, a very promising limitless future for all our energy needs. And I am certain I will die seeing one working efficiently.
      Don't you think it would be plausible that an highly advanced civilization that is capable of "instant" teleportation will be able to create full blown suns, in principle it will be scaling up to what we are going to have in this century. Even our human scientists, with our current XXI century "rudimentary knowledge" would be capable of theorizing such a device TODAY. I imagine that such an advanced civilization would have mastered principles that we CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE.

      In such an advanced civilization, economic needs are past of their prehistory.

    35. Re:This has its perks by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      If you've developed technology where you can live in tin can for extended periods of time and travel light years across the galaxy, then living on a place like the moon or Mars is relatively easy.

      As would be living in space habitats, where you have the advantage of access to all the mineral (asteroids) and volatiles (comets etc.) of your solar system without having to expensively haul them out of a planet's gravity well, and massive solar energy with which to synthesize anything else you need. If you have the technology to build a colony fleet, its probably easier to build a Dyson swarm (as originally conceived - not the SciFi "Big Dumb Object" version).

      ...and if they're not so rational then don't worry: if they're evil madbeings then they'll be eating each other and worshiping the ship's engine by the time they get here :-)

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    36. Re:This has its perks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Take a look at "ordinary" flight. Not too long ago, it was deemed completely impossible

      Was it? Birds, bats and insects didn't seem to think so.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:This has its perks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It could be that the cost of transporting an invasion fleet great distances could be much less for a sufficiently advanced civilization.

      But in that case the cost of the alternatives - building an artificial planet, terraforming an existing one or whatever - would also be lower.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    38. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. A huge energy source is quite fine as long as you have the raw elements needed to make breathable air, tyvm.

      - fractoid (who has mod points)

    39. Re:This has its perks by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Maybe they need "Lebensraum", because there are not many planets that sustain life?

      You're a spacefaring civilisation capable of building an interstellar invasion fleet, and you're living on planets? Planets - those huge objects with totally predictable orbital paths, at the bottom of a deep gravity well? The ones that you might as well paint a big red target on and shout 'POINT THE RELATIVISTIC KILL VEHICLES HERE, GUYS!' And where 99.99999% of the usable mineral resources are miles down and under fantastically high pressure? Those things?

      Wow. You know, I'd have thought that the art of creating artificial habitats in space would be one that a civilisation would master long before they get to the point of interstellar colonisation and conquest. I guess I was wrong.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    40. Re:This has its perks by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Yes, and people said "maybe we can do that too" and created gigantic wings that they tried to flap but it couldn't generate even the tiniest bit of lift. Thus people concluded it wasn't possible...those creatures had bodies that were custom made for flight. Humans were much too heavy/dense, thus it had to be impossible.

    41. Re:This has its perks by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Humans like veal which has been prevented from exercising. Maybe they prefer the taste of brain matter which hasn't done much.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    42. Re:This has its perks by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Scary, yes, but if there is no FTL travel, the probability of this being a problem becomes vanishingly small. You're talking about a 200 year "problem" window out of a 4 billion year development time, there are a lot of stars in the galaxy, but I don't think we've got 20 million habitable planets within 200 light years.

    43. Re:This has its perks by ascari · · Score: 1

      So really what you're saying is that Earth is to extraterrestrials what Cancun is to Americans or Florida is to Canadians. In which case we can look forward to a booming tourist industry.

    44. Re:This has its perks by don+depresor · · Score: 1

      Just use two grams of nanobots instead of one, one gram programed to replicate and kill/genocide and the other gram programed to replicate and build massive spacefaring ships to send back "home".

      The ships itself are the loot, once they get back home you just dismantle them and you got a massive amount of resources with an very small cost for your home planet/planets

    45. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This place looks like /b/ to me... certainly not a lot of intelligence here, but plenty of morbid entertainment to be had... if that's your thing.

    46. Re:This has its perks by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Of course, it's entirely possible that we'll end up either being the invading force or turning a would-be invader into the conquered one. One of my favorite sc-fi themes is that humanity is essentially the real-life equivalent of a cross between the borg, the klingons and the romulans. I can't remember the exact wording (or where I read it) but in some sci-fi where earth was "invaded" there was a line that read something like "...unfortunately for them it turned out that man was very gifted when it came to killing things.". Tying in to this idea is the idea that the only reason we haven't heard from any other civilizations is because they're actively avoiding us out of fear of what would happen should we figure out FTL travel (and that there are other planets to colonize).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    47. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In any event, given enough energy you can fix your own planet without difficulty, and terraform a new one almost as easily"

      Didn't you get the memo? Magrathea is closed down until the galactic economy improves.

      Slartibardfast

    48. Re:This has its perks by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not if they have any economic sense in their heads. Unless the aliens have some sort of magic infinite energy source or teleportation device, the cost of transporting an invasion fleet to another solar system would be orders of magnitude higher than the value of anything they could possibly gain from Earth. And if they do have an infinite energy source or teleportation device, then they could use those inventions to provide for their needs directly, without leaving their home.

      Just how many aliens do you need in an invasion fleet? Suppose it's a couple of desperate entrepreneurs (perhaps with some genetic material for making more aliens and appropriate machinery) looking to score. It might be two entrepreneurs today and a billion lab-grown alien conquerors a couple of decades from now.

    49. Re:This has its perks by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Between galaxies in a few months??? I dare say you're presuming a bit much there. Just for reference, the nearest galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away.

      Let's see...

      2.5 Mly in, say, four months...that'll require a constant acceleration of about 100g.

      Of course, that's still 2.5 million years as far as the rest of the universe is concerned....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    50. Re:This has its perks by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      *: Pink Goo is mankind. It replicates relatively slowly, but some people think it will nevertheless fill any amount of space given enough time.

      Note that all other lifeforms try to do this as well. Most of them don't succeed because something eats them (or they starve to death after eating all their own prey). As the apex predator on this planet (as well as an omnivorous agriculturalist), we don't usually have that issue.

      Note also that the total mass of beetles on Earth is greater than the total mass of humans. Which suggests that we're not terribly successful (so far) at filling all the space on this planet, much less elsewhere.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    51. Re:This has its perks by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 1

      We gotta consider the possibility, that any extraterrestrials close enough to hear our signals in any reasonable amount of time, and with the sophistication to pinpoint us....

      Might have the technology and desire to invade earth.

      E.g. Consider earth itself... fast forward a few dozen generations...... massive overpopulation, lack of resources, land, severe overcrowding.

      Extreme desire for another habitable place to live.

      You're making the awfully large assumption that Earth would be considered habitable for another species. It is just as likely that an nitrogen and oxygen rich atmosphere would be poisonous or even acidic to them (more likely?) than breathable. We also need to consider possible differences in mass and gravity, not to mention that any extraterrestrial that sets foot on Earth would have to contend with a diverse and aggressive ecosystem (I'm thinking bacteria and viruses that have lived here for millions of years).

      As far as the Earth having massive resources, what could we possibly have that couldn't be obtained more easily from one of the (thousands/millions) of other mostly uninhabited other planets in the galaxy? Further, why go to the possibly enormous effort of coming to a world which is already inhabited in the first place (assuming the reason is not for the sake of anthropology or scientific curiosity), especially considering that if they are that advanced they could find other suitable worlds whose indigenous species is less hostile (and lets face it, we ARE a rather hostile species, even if we aren't that technologically advanced).

      No, I find it far more likely that if another species did contact us it would not out of aggression or need for resources, but for scientific purposes... or worse, a need to spread their particular religious beliefs to all non-believers.

      Then again, the universe is pretty big place, and there could be any number of space-faring species that might be tempted by Earth. Who knows.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    52. Re:This has its perks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is we should obseverve some creature that travels faster than light and not blindly copy them?

      In any case, the premise is wrong. 400 years ago Leonardo aa Vinci produced theoretical designs and 200 years ago George Cayley built a working prototype.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    53. Re:This has its perks by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      Now imagine if it somehow gets around that the natives are *delicious*

    54. Re:This has its perks by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Economics may not come into it. An attack could be just a form of self defence.

      There was a lot of debate about this in the 80s. People realised that because relativistic weapons were likely to be available to any advanced civilisation (including us in another 50-100 years) there is a great danger that another race could send one at us and there would be no way of stopping it or escaping it.

      So when you detect an alien civilisation's radio waves there is a fair chance they already have the capability to destroy you remotely. You might even be quite frightened of them because the sounds and images you receive show them killing each other by the millions and developing weapons of mass destruction, as well as expanding out into space. You know that they must know the same things about relativistic weapons.

      You have three options. Carry on as normal and hope they grow out of their violent ways, try to hide by limiting EM/neutrino/light radiation from your civilisation or send some relativistic bombs their way and hope they arrive before they get the chance to send some back at you. Actually you might be able to combine the last two.

      Maybe next time some snack company wants to broadcast an advert into space we should think twice about allowing them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    55. Re:This has its perks by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      It reduces the probability that earth could be quickly located.

      We gotta consider the possibility, that any extraterrestrials close enough to hear our signals in any reasonable amount of time, and with the sophistication to pinpoint us....

      Might have the technology and desire to invade earth.

      Fear not fellow primitive meatbag; alien societies are friendly! and nice and want to GIVE you enlightenment and technology and snakes. Snaks. Snacks. Snacakes. Ckaes of snaking. twinkies?

      Please continu to send singles. Signals out to space so enlightenment and snackcake! dreadnoughts can find you and DROP technology all over primitive disgusting meatbag world and hopefully pick up advance infilitrational scout first.

    56. Re:This has its perks by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is we should obseverve some creature that travels faster than light and not blindly copy them?

      No, but I suppose if we ever did observe one, it may not give us a lot of insight into how to accomplish it. The only thing it will help us in is at least knowing that SOMETHING can move faster than light.

      In any case, the premise is wrong. 400 years ago Leonardo aa Vinci produced theoretical designs and 200 years ago George Cayley built a working prototype.

      I'm not sure how the premise is wrong. There have always been people who believed flight was possible but the popular consensus was that it wasn't possible. Now the popular consensus is that faster-than-light travel isn't possible. Yet there are still people that believe it is. Some of those people have ideas about how it could be theoretically accomplished. Perhaps one of those people has already come up with the proper theory but it will be hundred or even thousands of years until we figure out the mechanics of how to implement it. I'm sure Da Vinci's ideas were considered crazy by a lot of people at the time.

    57. Re:This has its perks by GreenTom · · Score: 1

      I think SF has made us completely forget how far away other stars are. Everything we know about physics says that interstellar distances are fundamental barriers, not just technological ones. I'm almost certain that for the cost of sending a person on a one way trip to another star, you can support many people in roomy, comfortable space habitats. Getting 1kg of mass up to near light speed requires more than 1kg of energy, so even for a civilization with direct mass-energy conversion, it's not economical to ship things interstellar distances in reasonable time.

      Of course, you might want to extinguish other species for some reason, or you might want to expand your species with von-newman type probes, or you might have some cultural urge for research/contact. But I don't think 18th century style colonization ever makes sense. Alpha Centuri is just a lot farther away then Portugal.

    58. Re:This has its perks by GreenTom · · Score: 1

      True enough, but a hostile species is not going to pull into orbit, send down a bunch of landing craft, and run around setting fires. All they have to do is not slow down--a ship 10x the size of the space shuttle, moving at 0.99c, has about the same energy as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Over interstellar distances, it's a lot easier to sterilize a planet than it is to invade it. Hell, it might even be easier to melt the crust than it is to invade.

    59. Re:This has its perks by GreenTom · · Score: 1

      Unless,of course, they want our women.

    60. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      As far as the Earth having massive resources, what could we possibly have that couldn't be obtained more easily from one of the (thousands/millions) of other mostly uninhabited other planets in the galaxy?

      Biologically-created resources such as Oil which do not exist on uninhabited worlds.

    61. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      No... there's no method of FTL travel that we know about.

      There's also no time travel, no cold fusion, smashing the atom, etc. It used to be a fundamental law of physics that neither energy nor matter could ever be created or destroyed. That got proved wrong too.

      Some of the things that are possible, we have not created yet, or discovered how to create yet. We cannot be sure against discovering counterexamples to any laws. Even the laws of thermodynamics can be found to have exceptions.

      Some of the things that are possible, our currented limited understanding of physics suggests they might be impossible or nearly impossible.

      That doesn't mean extraterrestrials won't have the technology.

      There are already theories such as how 'bending space' in suitable ways might lead to long-distance travel.

    62. Re:This has its perks by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Agreed that laws will be broken, but on the other hand, experimental observation strongly suggests that extreme FTL travel (like > Warp 10 or 1000c) isn't practiced in our universe by any exponentially expanding phenomenon like life. If it is happening, they are 100% stealthy to (most of) us.

      Sure, we could be the first - but that kind of thinking is more aligned with the Earth being the center of the universe, one of those "laws" that most people have given up on.

    63. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Getting 1kg of mass up to near light speed requires more than 1kg of energy, so even for a civilization with direct mass-energy conversion, it's not economical to ship things interstellar distances in reasonable time.

      Who said anything about accelerating a mass up to near the speed of light using conventional methods? There might be other ways of reducing the distance of the path the object must travel, to reach the other object, to a small distance, at a reasonable velocity nowhere near the speed of light. If you are accelerating the object, its velocity must exceed the normal speed of light, to cross galaxies in a sane amount of time. E.g. 1,000,000x the speed of light. And it could travel between galaxies in one year.

      I think SF has made us completely forget how far away other stars are. Everything we know about physics says that interstellar distances are fundamental barriers, not just technological ones.

      'Fundamental barriers' are a construct created by humans.

      Our understanding of physics is susceptible to error, and we make a lot of assumptions that can be wrong.

      Fundamental in this case, just means, that a larger body of human study of physics was originally built on that, and invalidating it means a great deal of laws will need revision, for our theories and laws to be consistent.

      Extraterrestrials could have an entirely different understanding of physics than we do, and an entirely different body of physical laws.

      That are just as consistent and true as ours on observation.

      Just because of the fact that many of our laws in physics are approximations that are usually close enough to true, and aliens could have different concepts.

      Anyways, entire notions we have not conceived of, may be possible, and may only be possible with extraterrestrials' body of physics.

    64. Re:This has its perks by pydev · · Score: 1

      And then they do .... what, exactly? If we're talking about economic incentive, they still need to send massive ships here

      Not necessarily. They might simply want to replicate their civilization here. Or they might want to use earth to build a massive computer and send back data. Maybe they are religious extremists.

      Throwing a magical "nanotechnology" thingy into the mix doesn't really change anything.

      Well, it greatly lowers the cost of getting to another planet. And there are many reasons for doing that that don't involve sending any physical object back.

    65. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not scary at all. would be hilarious watching our imperialist leaders have their worlds destroyed.

    66. Re:This has its perks by nawitus · · Score: 1

      The obvious value is to destroy an threat to their existence, or to use the planet's resources for computation.

    67. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds quite true. Although there wouldn't be much need to keep the original ecosystem after it has been properly scanned for all it's details.

      It would especially be wise to wipe out any signs of intelligent life in order to kill a potential competitor civilization in it's infancy.

      I would imagine that an alien visitor would kill us swiftly and painlessly, perhaps through a remotely activated virus or something similar. No warning, no breaking news on CNN. The last thing you'd see would be everyone falling to the ground. (Save for a few submariners and other isolated humans.)

    68. Re:This has its perks by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Not if they have any economic sense in their heads. Unless the aliens have some sort of magic infinite energy source or teleportation device, the cost of transporting an invasion fleet to another solar system would be orders of magnitude higher than the value of anything they could possibly gain from Earth. And if they do have an infinite energy source or teleportation device, then they could use those inventions to provide for their needs directly, without leaving their home.

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      I'm sure the Native Americans could have made a similar arguement about the ridiculousness of and invasion fleet rowing their canoes across the Atlantic to attack them. That's the thing about future technology, you really aren't sure what it is capable of. We really don't know much about the universe we live in. What we normally think of as the universe in matter and energy is less than 5% of what's there. The rest we can barely even detect let alone determine what it is and what physics it operates under. For even all our talk about wormholes, hyperspace, Alcubierre drives, we're probably really just a bunch of savages trying to determine how lash our canoes together to make a jumbojet when talking about future tech. The only real thing that our current physics tells us is that they cannot accelerate through the speed of light, and that the minimum energy to reach here is the difference in potential energies between their starting and ending locations. If they're coming from the galactic rim towards the core, it could be a free ride if they do develop some sort of teleportation.

      As to why they might decide to invade us. Who knows? They're alien. Their reasoning and decision making process might not even make sense to us. A planet with an atmosphere in a nice liquid water zone around a star may be enough of a reason. If compatible, it certainly make for a cheap living space. Much cheaper than trying to build enough space ships to house as many people as could live on a planet. There are also cultural, religious, and aesthetic reason they might decide to invade. Hell, they might just want to open up markets and engage us as equal trade partners. That alone would probably cause enough change to be equivilant to invading.

    69. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't remember the exact wording (or where I read it) but in some sci-fi where earth was "invaded" there was a line that read something like "...unfortunately for them it turned out that man was very gifted when it came to killing things.".

      It's also possible that man isn't a very accomplished killer. We may be on the short bus of interstellar murderers.

      But then, novels about an invading alien force that wipes out humanity don't tend to sell as well as those where humanity defeats the invaders.

    70. Re:This has its perks by h00manist · · Score: 1

      I imagine that by the time a civilization has the power to go to another solar system for colonization issues of overcrowding would be overcome by technology.

      Well we do have technology advanced enough to overcome most of our issues, but mostly misused, we are stopped from going anywhere mostly by our own political and economic interests, or rather, lack of human civilization advancement. Technology will apparently eventually produce a more advanced civilization, but it's a hell of a tortuous route.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    71. Re:This has its perks by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Funny

      We are in the XXI century just are beginning to see the Fusion Reactor [...] and I am certain I will die seeing one working efficiently.

      Now there's an ominous sounding prophecy... :^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    72. Re:This has its perks by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes, we were just planted here a few millenia ago, and the farmers will be back soon, at harvest time.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    73. Re:This has its perks by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Just use two grams of nanobots instead of one, one gram programed to replicate and kill/genocide and the other gram programed to replicate and build massive spacefaring ships to send back "home".

      Where would the massive spacefaring ships obtain the huge amounts of energy required to make the return trip? Perhaps they could strip-mine the entire planet for it, but if they are going to be strip-mining planets, Earth is hardly the most attractive target for that.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    74. Re:This has its perks by olman · · Score: 1

      "magic infinite energy source" is spelled interstellar hydrogen, no? Bussard Ramjet can conceivably generate "free" energy. Besides which, consider extremely advanced society with wast resources. Then consider George W. Are you scared yet?

      It doesn't take many people acting irrationally to screw you up sideways if they have a slice of huge resource base. You have to consider aliens might be acting for religious or ideological basis, and just a small minority of their society.

      In any case, "invasion fleet" would need about exactly one ship, one. We have zero defense against a spaceship which has capability to move in stellar space, never mind interstellar.

      Yeah, if they're kind and give us couple of years, we can for sure build orion and go get them. no, no, not the nasa boondoggle killed in crib, the real deal from 50s! Unfortunately "they" would have the absolute high ground and would most likely have the means to take out fairly primitive nuclear propulsion spacecraft without breaking sweat.

      Now that they have de facto taken governor generalship of earth, what are they going to do with it? Occupy earth? Ha. Hardly likely. More like some kind of deal where X amount of industrial and energy output would be devoted to whatever our saviours bloody well want. Or else. Then again, what would they want? If it's more starships, they'd be giving us the technology and industrial base to go get them. Bring us freedom? Convert us? Make us biggest reality TV show ever?

      Who knows.

    75. Re:This has its perks by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Can you show me which scientific theory claimed that flight wasn't possible?

      Given that birds fly, even in ancient times it ought to be trivial to disprove any claim that heavier than air flight was impossible (whether or not humans might work out how to do it).

    76. Re:This has its perks by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      The fact that we are here, and are not part of a race that have conquered the galaxy (let alone all galaxies) is evidence to the theory that faster than time travel is inherently impossible.

      Note that there's a distinct difference between stuff deemed practically impossible (faster than the speed of sound? Your machine will collapse), and stuff that is deemed theoretically impossible (temperature lower than 0 Kelvin? Information travelling faster than the speed of light?). Flight was always theoretically possible, as was flight at whatever speed. We didn't know if people could cope with it, but nothing theoretical was in the way. But with the speed of light there is a theoretical problem, as the very notion of time hinges on the fact that the speed of light is constant. Compare this with 0 Kelvin temperature, another of these limits. It is hard to comprehend if something can be colder than 0 Kelvin, as it would mean that we surpass the point where all motion stops. What can be beyond? Same with the speed of light. Faster than light travel means that you can make a trip from earth and arrive earlier than you started. Instant time travel. The fact that the future has not been come knocking on our doors explaining how to travel faster than the speed of light makes the theory that faster than light travel is impossible more likely.

      The fact that faster than light travel is necessary for galactic scale civilizations does not mean that there must be a way around it. For all we know, we are stuck here and everyone we will send out will never be heard from again... simply because communications take too long.

    77. Re:This has its perks by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Who knows? They're alien.

      Exactly. We can't even figure out what the opposite sex of our own species is doing / thinking most of the time.

      And you guys think you can come up with plausible scenarios for aliens. Yeah, right.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    78. Re:This has its perks by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I (and the book I paraphrased) wasn't talking about "humanity defeats the invaders" but rather "humanity turns out to be the bloodthirsty invaders once they acquire the technology necessary for this". And there are plenty of "alien invasion" sci-fi books out there.

      Why am I even replying to an AC that's (purposefully?) misinterpreting my post?

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    79. Re:This has its perks by don+depresor · · Score: 1

      The amount of energy required depends on the time you have for the trip, if the "atacking" civilization has enough time, it's trivial to speed up to something like 0.5 C and send them back home.

      Imagine a civilization sending small probes all around the galaxy, after that they just have to wait, and after the initial wait of maybe 50-100 years you get a constat stream of ships coming from all around the galaxy, you just sit there and start building like crazy (a dyson sphere, and then the real space-traveling colonies to build dyson spheres on the closest stars). With the probable knoledge that if you did your work right, your supply is almost neverending.

    80. Re:This has its perks by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that oil would have any worth to aliens, as a fuel source or otherwise. Aside from plastics and lubricants oil really only has value to us as a fuel source, and if they have the ability to reach Earth via interstellar travel it is highly unlikely that that would consider it valuable as fuel.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    81. Re:This has its perks by bhartman34 · · Score: 1

      It could be that the cost of transporting an invasion fleet great distances could be much less for a sufficiently advanced civilization.

      But in that case the cost of the alternatives - building an artificial planet, terraforming an existing one or whatever - would also be lower.

      My understanding is that terraforming is cheaper than interstellar travel (although, of course, neither option comes "cheap"). As I said, the odds are, even if they did have the resources to make such a trip, they could almost certainly get resources closer to home.

      The only way I really see it as reasonable is if they have some kind of expansionist agenda. If that was the case, though, one would hope that we would've seen them coming before they actually contacted us.

    82. Re:This has its perks by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Just use two grams of nanobots instead of one, one gram programed to replicate and kill/genocide and the other gram programed to replicate and build massive spacefaring ships to send back "home".

      *facepalm*

      You know, if you replace the word "nanobots" with "magic", your sentence will make a lot more sense.

      We don't even know that such technology is POSSIBLE, so positing it offhand is ridiculous. If you're going to play that game, though, then you're suggesting that their "nanobots" can magically change matter at the atomic level, which means they wouldn't have any need to come this far. They'd get a fuck of a lot more resources from a gas-giant in their own system than they would from an earth-like planet dozens of light-years away.

    83. Re:This has its perks by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      That sounds like Larry Niven's (and others) writings on the Known Space universe, including Man-Kzin Wars.. there's a lot of books out there, and most are a great read.

    84. Re:This has its perks by don+depresor · · Score: 1

      Just a few days ago we got an article about a nanobot that can manipulate single atoms, with some help, yes but it's a start considering we've just started to develop the idea...

      And I bet you know that wonderfull quote about magic and advanced technology, right?

      Also I guess that gas giant has a neverending supply of materials, who would need more than one solar system...

    85. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Well, humans would consider it a valuable source of fuel... and sure plastics, you named some possible uses..

      If their biology is a bit different from ours, oil or some body part of humans might be food, as in a prized delicacy worth lots of money in their society.

      Suppose humans get interstellar travel capabilities, and we come upon an inferior alien species?

      Of course NASA was privatized a long time ago, and all space missions are fielded by private companies who don't have any interstellar laws to worry about violating.

      If they see an inferior civilization on another planet, that can be exploited for resources, or slave labor, what are they going to do?

    86. Re:This has its perks by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      The amount of energy required depends on the time you have for the trip, if the "atacking" civilization has enough time, it's trivial to speed up to something like 0.5 C and send them back home.

      Perhaps, but the real gotcha is the deceleration you'll need to do before you reach home. The energy required to decelerate from 0.5C back to a (relative) stop is non-trivial, and worse, you'll have to carry all the necessary fuel/reactant to do the deceleration with you, which means a lot more mass to accelerate in the first phase. That's why the cost of space travel goes up exponentially as you add mass to the payload.

      after the initial wait of maybe 50-100 years you get a constat stream of ships coming from all around the galaxy

      Ships that would either whizz right by you, crash into you at relativistic speeds (with presumably fatal results), or have to spend most of their payload capacity decelerating before they got to you.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    87. Re:This has its perks by don+depresor · · Score: 1

      Exactly the same amount of energy it required to accelerate, but applied in the oposite direction, you just have to start deceleratin soon enough.

    88. Re:This has its perks by tftp · · Score: 1

      25,000 light-years is still not going to be traversable in months.

      Unless you are traveling near warp 10.

    89. Re:This has its perks by tftp · · Score: 1

      Ships that would either whizz right by you, crash into you at relativistic speeds (with presumably fatal results), or have to spend most of their payload capacity decelerating before they got to you.

      I see that you are not a Cosmic Engineer then. I would catch the incoming ship with some force field and recover all its kinetic energy while slowing it down. Remember, an advanced civilization, who builds a Dyson Sphere, is not necessarily limited to kerosene+LOX rockets.

    90. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is we should obseverve some creature that travels faster than light and not blindly copy them?

      Supposing a creature did travel faster than light, we would have some difficulties perceiving it.

      We don't know of a way to develop electronics or optics that can perceive signals or motion at a faster speed of light, if it were to occur.

      And something moving so fast cannot be perceived by the naked eye, either.

      As a result, it would be impossible for humans to observe the creature traveling that fast.

    91. Re:This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Melting the crust would probably not be a good idea if they want to live here due to the ideal living environment

      Biological attacks against humans, or attacks against human technology are more likely.

      If humans are at their current level of development... I imagine Phase 1 would involve creating a large number of EMPs in earth's upper atmosphere, to disable electronics and military intelligence on the ground, radar, etc.

      Phase 2 would involve capturing some humans for 'research' purposes... analyzing them, and eventually developing a "humanicide", or rather, a biological agent designed to attack just human DNA, and leave other less-hostile organisms intact, probably something 1000x as potent and deadly to humans as any bio weapon we currently know about.

      Or they could make a more 'humane' version and only cause massive sterilization, disperse it throughout the planet. Then they return in ~100 years, to take ownership of the planet.

      Phase 3 would be colonization.

      All colonists would have plenty of the potent lethal version of the weapon, in the form of hand sprays and foggers.

      So that one small squirt from a hand spray would kill any humans within about 10 miles of the release. Or such that a fogger release would obliterate all humans within 200 miles radius within 2 hours.

    92. Re:This has its perks by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Just a few days ago we got an article about a nanobot that can manipulate single atoms, with some help, yes but it's a start considering we've just started to develop the idea...

      Sure, and we've successfully demonstrated quantum teleportation, but that doesn't mean it's possible to have Scotty beam you up to the moon. There's a world of difference between making a nano-scale apparatus capable of nudging atoms and building a nano-scale machine capable of being programmed and re-programmed, let alone a complex network of such machines which could follow schematics in order to build you a spaceship. Being able to do one does not automatically make the other possible, let alone easy or even practical.

      And I bet you know that wonderfull quote about magic and advanced technology, right?

      Yeah, and it's a quote based on a silly assumption. Sure, people who believe in gods and magic will be awed by complex technologies. We've yet to see how someone like, say, Carl Sagan, would react to a "sufficiently advanced technology".

      Also I guess that gas giant has a neverending supply of materials, who would need more than one solar system...

      I don't think you realize the scale we're talking about here. If you tore Jupiter into it's constituent atoms, you'd have enough material to build 300 PLANETS the size of the earth. Let's be extremely generous and say that all of mankinds creations put together have a mas of about 0.0001% of the earth - that means that your gas-giant-harvesting aliens would have enough material to build 300,000,000 times as much stuff as everything we've ever built. Assuming similar standards of living and biological requirements, they'd have enough resources to support a population of 1,800,000,000,000,000 individuals.

      So, ok, let's say they're not only super-beings with magical technology, but also greedy assholes on a quest to harvest the galaxy. Why in the world would they come to earth instead of going to Jupiter? Better yet, why not mine a brown dwarf which can weigh in at as much as 24,000 Earths?

      Pretty much the ONLY reason for any alien species to invade the earth would be in order to prevent future competition. However, we could easily file that under "for their own entertainment", and anyway, they certainly wouldn't be coming here for "economic reasons" which was the original claim.

    93. Re:This has its perks by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Your descriptions seems very much like the short science fiction story The Road Not Taken by Harry Turtledove.

    94. Re:This has its perks by Exception+Duck · · Score: 1

      So the beetles are using us to deliver them into space so the can colonize the universe?

      We are nothing but slaves!

    95. Re:This has its perks by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So the beetles are using us to deliver them into space so the can colonize the universe?

      We are nothing but slaves!

      I have heard a quite reasonable argument that the grasses have domesticated us - we tend them carefully, destroy their predators, protect them from diseases, serve their every need....

      And any cat person would agree that cats have us thoroughly domesticated ;)

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    96. Re:This has its perks by Exception+Duck · · Score: 1

      As someone who used to have a cat - I know this is true - was always to afraid to voice that opinion. The might have learnt how to read them cats.

    97. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how long it will take the invaders to reach their target (faster than light travel is still the stuff of SF), the target will have had plenty of time to reach a higher level of technology.

      Makes me wonder about US culture, especially with all the gun nuts on the other thread about "smart" guns.

    98. Re:This has its perks by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Exactly the same amount of energy it required to accelerate, but applied in the oposite direction, you just have to start deceleratin soon enough.

      Actually, less energy, since you don't have to decelerate the mass of the fuel/reactant that you expelled from your ship while accelerating.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    99. Re:This has its perks by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Naw, that's way too low tech. Me, I'd just wave my tentacles and quantumly teleportate the entire Earths right into my soup bowl. Remember, an imaginary civilization, who builds a Dyson Sphere, is not necessarily limited to anything.

    100. Re:This has its perks by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      "This planet is so noisy. You're getting noticed. More and more. You'd better get used to it." -- The Doctor

      Or rather, this planet has been so noisy, and now that we're switching to shorter-range communications, we're ceasing to be a navigation beacon. And now that's getting us noticed.

      We'll be invaded for bureaucratic reasons.

      "Those who cannot hear an angry shout may strain to hear a whisper." -- Riker Odan

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    101. Re:This has its perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can clearly discern that the above poster is an alien, from it having obviously learned Engrish from text-messages and South Park episodes that have leaked into the aether. Also from its inability to tell a well-padded human from a twinkie.

  4. Good. by k.a.f. · · Score: 1

    The possibility of extra-terrestrials intercepting our signals, being interested in them, replying before humanity has run its course, and something good coming of it, are so remote that it's not worth constantly wasting energy for the purpose. If you look at Earth from space you realize what a tiny, limited, fragile place it is and how important it is that we do all we can to make us "live long and prosper". Hoping that aliens are going to help us in any way is counter-productive.

    1. Re:Good. by cetialphav · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The flip side, of course, is that monitoring for radio signals is extremely cheap. It uses equipment that we already use for other purposes and a small number of researchers. The potential upside is huge, though. Discovering that an advanced civilization exists somewhere is such a big deal that there is no reason not to do something cheap and easy to find it.

      I agree that the odds are stacked against us and that it is unlikely that we find anything. Even if we are lucky enough to pick up a signal, establishing communications would be difficult. The odds are stacked against us, no question. But we are a curious species and we just can't pass up an opportunity to learn something, especially when it costs us so little.

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

      It would really piss of the creationists. Worth seeking just for that reason.

    3. Re:Good. by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Precisely how cheap do you think the electricity bill of 2-3 million SETI users is?

      Oh, yeah - energy's cheap and plentiful I forgot - how silly of me.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  5. Fermi Paradox by localman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And this is a possible answer to the Fermi paradox. Well, after you accept that interstellar travel is not economically feasible.

    Broadcast is not a great communication strategy. On-demand point-to-point communication takes over most things. Advanced civilizations go silent from the outside within a blink of them transmitting their first broadcast signals. There's no reason to think that we'll ever put serious effort into sending signals into the black given all the other things on our plate. And there's no reason to think that any other civilization would have such extra resources either.

    Cheers.

    1. Re:Fermi Paradox by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to think that we'll ever put serious effort into sending signals into the black given all the other things on our plate. And there's no reason to think that any other civilization would have such extra resources either.

      Sure there is... it's not like putting up a few beacons is hard to do, as evidenced by the fact that we were able to do it, unintentionally, even back in the 1920's.

      Whether or not we (or any hypothetical aliens) would want to do it is another question, but certainly any technological civilization equal to or more advanced than our can do it, with very little effort. Hell, a sufficiently motivated private citizen could do it (FCC regulations notwithstanding).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Fermi Paradox by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And this is a possible answer to the Fermi paradox. Well, after you accept that interstellar travel is not economically feasible.

      Except no-one in their right mind would accept that. The cost of an interstellar colonisation flight would be small compared to the value of another solar system, and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species.

      Given that any alien race who chose to expand could colonise the entire galaxy in under ten million years without even trying hard (or a hundred million years without trying at all, just by tourists on a random walk), the answer to the Fermi Paradox is simple: there aren't any... if they existed, they'd be about as hard to spot as technological life in Manhattan.

    3. Re:Fermi Paradox by precariousgray · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And there's no reason to think that any other civilization would have such extra resources either.

      I think it's a pretty ignorant statement to presuppose that any other civilization in the universe will necessarily irreparably rape and exploit their planet for resources as badly as we humans have.

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    4. Re:Fermi Paradox by Bartab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except no-one in their right mind would accept that. The cost of an interstellar colonisation flight would be small compared to the value of another solar system, and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species.

      The economic return of interstellar colonization is zero.

      The only return is darwinistic. Not all our eggs in one biological basket, and all that. However, unless we're damn sure the target system has an earth-like breathable, survivable biosphere, then we may as well stick to this system. We're not exploiting most of it at all. We -might- find an oxygen atmosphere, heated water laden, near-1g planet "nearby" (100 ly) but it's unlikely. What's nearly impossible is finding one with a biosphere that we can survive in without basically obliterating it and dropping down earth biologicals. Most things on such a planet would poison us.

      Unless such a magical planet is found, exploring outside our system before serious colonization (which -could- be economically valuable) of Mars, gas giant moons, etc is a waste. On all levels.

      If such a planet was found, I'd consider it proof of god.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    5. Re:Fermi Paradox by bit01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The economic return of interstellar colonization is zero.

      The economic return of life is zero. Pretty pointless expending all that energy to be worm food.

      You need to remember what economic value is - anything that people value and are willing to pay money for.

      And a lot of people think that extending humanity's reach is pretty damn valuable. You might not agree but different people have different values.

      ---

      DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.

    6. Re:Fermi Paradox by pydev · · Score: 1

      The cost of an interstellar colonisation flight would be small compared to the value of another solar system

      Value to whom? Investors get no ROI.

      and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species.

      Sufficiently advanced civilizations may not care. Remember that even at the individual level, many people choose not to procreate and don't fear death. An advanced civilization may realize that a good few million years on their own planet, maybe even without a lot of technology, is valuable enough in its own right.

      the answer to the Fermi Paradox is simple: there aren't any...

      That's not the answer to the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox is the question of why there aren't any. I think you are implying that they haven't evolved, but that is statistically nearly impossible.

    7. Re:Fermi Paradox by pydev · · Score: 1

      What's nearly impossible is finding one with a biosphere that we can survive in without basically obliterating it and dropping down earth biologicals. Most things on such a planet would poison us.

      Most biological poisons are highly evolved and specialized. It's unlikely that any alien species would have developed poisons that target humans. Other than that, life throughout the universe probably uses mostly the same sugars, amino acids, and DNA. There may be some unusual compounds, but they would just be indigestible.

    8. Re:Fermi Paradox by pydev · · Score: 1

      I think it's a pretty ignorant statement to presuppose that any other civilization in the universe will necessarily irreparably rape and exploit their planet for resources as badly as we humans have.

      I think it's a pretty safe bet. Nor is it necessarily as negative as you make it out to be. Europe "raped" its continent, radically altering the ecology, exterminating and introducing species, and mining natural resources to near depletion. Is Europe a barren desert now? Is it populated by impoverished nomads? No.

      Progress requires using the resources you have, even at the planetary level. Altering the environment isn't intrinsically bad, as long as you don't kill yourself.

    9. Re:Fermi Paradox by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      If such a planet was found, I'd consider it proof of god.

      Tonight, on CNN: Disparate religions have suddenly voiced a unanimous desire to fund space exploration.

    10. Re:Fermi Paradox by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Pardon me but I find this all pretty irritation.

      The Fermi "Paradox" is nothing more than a conjecture, and there is nothing paradoxical about it. It doesn't even deserve to be famous. Others have wondered the same thing, before and since.

    11. Re:Fermi Paradox by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the Western world, the economic return of having children is often considerably less than zero. Yet people keep doing it. I wonder why? Could it be that there are more things to consider than simple economics? I think that just might be possible.

      Why do you think finding an Earth-like world within 100 light years is "unlikely"? We have already discovered worlds with liquid water. Unfortunately, so far they have been far too large for us... but that's just because the big ones are easier to find. In just the last year we have found several planets closer to earth's size.

      Given our actual experience of the last couple of years, I don't think it's "unlikely" at all. I think it's quite likely indeed.

      Maybe you just haven't been keeping up with the recent news?

    12. Re:Fermi Paradox by localman · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling you are vastly underestimating the cost of travel and colonization and vastly overestimating the value of other worlds.

      As an example: what value would we get out of colonizing the moon. Or Venus or Mars? I've read a lot of good sci-fi too, but if your'e honest about it the answer is: not much. We can't even bring ourselves to build reasonable colonies underwater on earth, or at the south pole -- environments that are orders of magnitude easier to reach and tame.

      We are far more adapted to this planet, indeed, very specific parts of this planet, than we like to realize. The same is likely true of other evolved lifeforms in the universe. The energy and material costs of getting to and from our nearest neighbor star, and the timescales involved, would outweigh any resource advantage acquired there. It's not a fair extrapolation from our success in spreading the human race across this planet -- technology is not going to allow us to circumvent the speed of light.

      I find it interesting that anyone would choose to believe that we are unique amongst a billion billion worlds than to believe that we and our limitations are common. Given that there's no actual evidence either way, of course.

      Cheers.

    13. Re:Fermi Paradox by localman · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to find an earth-sized planet. It's another to find one with a useful atmosphere, a protective magnetosphere, and numerous other physical and biological characteristics that we take for granted. It always puzzles me how we seem to think that we are apart from the environment, when in fact humans have extremely limited success even drifting outside a narrow band of habitats on this very planet. We're basically only able to live because we co-evolved with this planet. Plopping us anywhere else is enormously complicated and carries unclear benefits.

      And if someone brings up terraforming, I'll just point you to our difficulties in even agreeing on what to do about the climate of our own nearly perfect planet which I'd like to see resolved before we talk seriously about fixing up another one.

      Cheers.

    14. Re:Fermi Paradox by localman · · Score: 1

      I more or less agree with your post, but there's an interesting and common assumption embedded there: that advanced civilizations have a say in whether they survive or not. I think we place far too much faith in our ability (and alien species ability) to manage long term changes. We've only got a few thousand years under our belt, and some relatively small changes in the earth's orbit or whatever can render our whole planet uninhabitable by most measures. Look around: we can hardly keep things going even with the world being given as a nearly perfect place for us.

      If we found out tomorrow (or even in 1000 years) that this planet was going to die soon, I find it almost impossible to believe that we'd get our collective shit together enough to colonize some other world. Not even Venus or Mars, let alone an as yet undiscovered planet orbiting Proxima Centauri or beyond. Really, it doesn't surprise me at all that there are no visitors from the other struggling worlds out there. It's hard enough just to last a few millennia.

      Cheers.

    15. Re:Fermi Paradox by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      How do we know aliens will be using radio waves to communicate?

    16. Re:Fermi Paradox by localman · · Score: 1

      Based on the difficulty NASA has in securing funding, I feel that most of humanity doesn't find space exploration to be particularly compelling. You're right about economics being anything that people value... and on that metric alone I think it would ultimately fail. But when I originally said it wasn't economically feasible I meant it in a more profound way: I do not think we are logistically capable of pulling together the resources to colonize a planet outside this solar system, even if we wanted to.

      Cheers.

    17. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If such a planet was found, I'd consider it proof of god.

      I guess you're in a minority there. Others consider the existence of our one planet proof of god and would turn into disbelievers if a second one was found.

    18. Re:Fermi Paradox by Bartab · · Score: 1

      Most biological poisons are highly evolved and specialized. It's unlikely that any alien species would have developed poisons that target humans.

      Poisons don't "target". A poison is just a compound. The liklihood of a biosphere not of Earth poisoning Earth life is extremely high. Even if that biosphere is oxygen and water based. This "alien species" that's walking around with the poison might call it "spit" or "blood" or "that crap in my eye in the morning", but its probably gonna kill us all the same.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    19. Re:Fermi Paradox by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Given that any alien race who chose to expand could colonise the entire galaxy in under ten million years without even trying hard (or a hundred million years without trying at all, just by tourists on a random walk), the answer to the Fermi Paradox is simple: there aren't any... if they existed, they'd be about as hard to spot as technological life in Manhattan.

      That is assuming that a sufficiently advanced alien race has the *desire* to colonize other systems. Consider how "close" (on a grander scale) humanity already is to developments such as universal constructors and advanced AIs - and if you could turn anything you have into anything you desire, if you are quasi-immortal with no need to reproduce: why colonize the universe when you have all you need already at home?

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    20. Re:Fermi Paradox by maxume · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by 'barely keep things going'? When I look around, I see a population that has grown by a factor of 7 in the last 100 years, while increasing energy consumption.

      That trend might not be sustainable (though every Malthusian prediction to date has been 'wrong'), but the current evidence is that we are a thriving, swarming success.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:Fermi Paradox by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Just for a laugh I did the following. Hopefully it will go down in history as the FatPhil Gas Giant Equation, and I'll be as famous as Drake!

      V_j = M_j * P_h * V_h

      Where:
      V_j = the value of jupiter
      M_j = the mass of jupiter
      P_h = the proportion of jupiter which is hydrogen
      V_h = the value of hydrogen

      Unlike the Drake equation, these values are all known very accurately (several significant digits)
      M_j = 1.8986×10^27 kg
      P_h = 0.71
      V_h = 0.15 $/kg

      Therefore:
      V_j = 1.8986×10^27 * 0.71 * $0.15 = $ 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

      Which is quite literally billions and billions of dollars!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    22. Re:Fermi Paradox by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      We -might- find an oxygen atmosphere, heated water laden, near-1g planet "nearby" (100 ly) but it's unlikely. What's nearly impossible is finding one with a biosphere that we can survive in without basically obliterating it and dropping down earth biologicals. Most things on such a planet would poison us.

      Unless such a magical planet is found, exploring outside our system before serious colonization (which -could- be economically valuable) of Mars, gas giant moons, etc is a waste. On all levels.

      If such a planet was found, I'd consider it proof of god.

      I dunno about that - since we've only got one example of a planet with life we don't know how variable life is. Maybe life based on DNA and proteins is really common.

      Even if their equivalent of proteins is different but based on the same principles we could still harvest them and convert them into ours with a few well engineered enzymes. Compared to the problem of getting there, even disassembling their proteins into atoms and reassembling those atoms into our proteins is not very hard.

      So consider - given a planet with oxygen and some plant and animal life but no intelligence humans would need to do some processing on the plant life but they could turn it into something they could consume.

      Still it seems it would make more sense to go somewhere nearer and bring your biosphere with you I have to admit.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    23. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economic return of interstellar colonization is zero.

      I hate this limited view of economy resulting in such statements.
      If you define economic return as what the investors personally get back for doing something, you have to come to such conclusions. But there are more things you should consider:
      - We don't live forever. Sooner or later, our children have to take over. Then the economic value is what our children have. Now if you see the new world as the home of some of our children, the new world becomes part of the economic value!
      - There is always a risk of total extinction on earth. It is small, at least in the timeframe of a human life. However if we stay on earth, this could reduces the economic value to zero. If we expanded to another world, we would still have that.

      Also, make sure not to see this in linear measures. The risk of total extinction isn't compensated by the chance to double the size of economy on earth. Total extinction is like dividing economy size by infinity. It can't be compensated by any chance to grow, growing by a factor of infinity is impossible.

    24. Re:Fermi Paradox by Lionfish · · Score: 1

      Is Europe a barren desert now? Is it populated by impoverished nomads?

      Nah, that's what we used Africa for.

    25. Re:Fermi Paradox by dissy · · Score: 1

      How do we know aliens will be using radio waves to communicate?

      Worded that way, we don't and can't know.

      However worded as: How do we know advanced technological aliens will have used radio waves to communicate? then it is much easier to answer.

      The fermi paradox only addresses advanced technological civilizations, not just any old alien puddle of goo.

      Additionally, by definition, to be technologically advanced, one must understand technology. Discovering and using radio is one of the beginning steps on that journey.
      Yes, the assumption is they probably won't KEEP using them for long. Even humanity has only used them in such a way for roughly 100 years, which is a tiny fraction of humanities existence.

      If they can't even figure out radio, they can't figure out any of the things more advanced than that, thus do not even qualify as a variable in the fermi paradox.

      That is why, by definition, it is guaranteed they will have at some point harnessed radio wave technology, in order to get the label 'advanced'.

    26. Re:Fermi Paradox by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Just how cheap is it though, really? I once tried to run SETI@home on my computers, and my power bill (and thus also CO2 emissions) went up noticeably. When I though about all the thousands of people who are making this sacrifice, it didn't really seem so small anymore. It seems much better to donate that money to poverty relief.

    27. Re:Fermi Paradox by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      That's not true. There is great economic value for some in being able to flip their home civilization the bird, get the fuck out of there and start something more sane on their own. This would be even more clear if you imagine the home civilization living in a very crowded and polluted place.

    28. Re:Fermi Paradox by mathx314 · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that there are two reasons people have children, both of which fulfill biological needs. The first is that we're programmed to an extent to be parents, and as a result many people feel they need to have children at some point in their lives (the "biological clock" theory). The second is that sex is fun, and babies just happen to be byproducts. Since it fulfills these two needs, people keep having kids. Unfortunately, there's no needs to be filled by going to another planet (that I'm aware of at least) so I tend to agree with the GP.

    29. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species

      So? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Am I supposed to give a shit about the human species over and above, say, some species of ants? Why? Just because I happen to be a member? That's idiotic. I value myself but fuck everyone else and fuck the species as a whole. Group think sucks.

    30. Re:Fermi Paradox by GreenTom · · Score: 1

      Not sure, but I think there are many amino acids, and at least 2 isomers of each, and it's just arbitrary that we happen to use the ones we do. (I've seen the fact that all life on earth uses the same amino acids as an argument that life only origniated here once.) This is what makes the alien disease/alien predator idea unrealistic--highly unlikley that they'd be able to get all the nutrients they need from our biochemistry.

    31. Re:Fermi Paradox by pydev · · Score: 1

      Poisons don't "target". A poison is just a compound.

      Chemical poisons are "just compounds". Biological poisons, on the other hand, are usually highly evolved and specific.

      This "alien species" that's walking around with the poison might call it "spit" or "blood" or "that crap in my eye in the morning", but its probably gonna kill us all the same.

      That's a possibility, but it's not all that likely. Most biological organisms are poisonous only because they evolved specialized poisons.

    32. Re:Fermi Paradox by cyberthanasis12 · · Score: 1

      Given that any alien race who chose to expand could colonise the entire galaxy in under ten million years without even trying hard (or a hundred million years without trying at all, just by tourists on a random walk), the answer to the Fermi Paradox is simple: there aren't any... if they existed, they'd be about as hard to spot as technological life in Manhattan.

      What if the speed of light IS the limit? And what if the huge energy required to send a ship to interstellar distances REMAINS huge cause there are no other means of thrust than Newton's. What if the habitable planters ARE rare (for example 100).
      In all these I assume that you send sperm and eggs to travel to another star, along with robots to incubate and raise new human beings (otherwise you assume S.F. is fact - just think, what if all SF says, simply can not be done). What if the eggs/sperm or the robots don't last the thousands of years of the journey? What if the planets there do not have the raw materials needed? What if due to little biological diversity the colony dies out? What if the new human civilization takes thousand of years to reach technological advancement? What if in the mean time Earth civilization is self destructed? If we assumed that a new colony, after thousands of years would send 10 successful missions, and in the mean time 10 human civilizations are self destructed, where is the exponential growth?
      It is a fact that in advanced countries people have few children. What if this is true, and in a colony the population is stabilized, and they don't want to leave their comfortable lives?
      What if my speculations are correct and yours aren't?
      Remember that many technology predictions (moon base, human in mars, flying cars for common people, cure of cancer, supersonic passenger planes, population control, etc) turned out to be false or failed.

    33. Re:Fermi Paradox by pydev · · Score: 1

      Not sure, but I think there are many amino acids, and at least 2 isomers of each, and it's just arbitrary that we happen to use the ones we do

      It's probably not arbitrary. And we actually use both to some degree.

      This is what makes the alien disease/alien predator idea unrealistic--highly unlikley that they'd be able to get all the nutrients they need from our biochemistry.

      There's at worst a 50/50 chance that they use the same amino acids as us. Furthermore, even terrestrial organisms can digest D-amino acids already and may just need a little boost. They might have bacteria to help them with the digestion. Or they might simply not need protein in their food and live off the sugars and lipids.

    34. Re:Fermi Paradox by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      NASA is hardly representative of all of humanity. Just because the US is standing down from manned space exploration (for the moment...) doesn't mean that others won't step up. Humanity will just have more Captain Sulus and Picards than Kirks.

    35. Re:Fermi Paradox by Bartab · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm replying to myself. That's because I'm not responding to anybody individually.

      It seems, when I say "poison us" everybody immediately assumes I'm talking about near-rattlesnakes using a biologically crafted poison and delivery method to kill us. Or even near-bacteria that decide to live in our gut, killing us shortly. Nope.

      What I mean is near-cow's that have meat we can't eat, or at best is pointless to do so. Near-grass that exude a covering that causes us to itch violently - and "only" give 50% of us allergic reactions bad enough to kill, but is quite tastey to the near-butterfly's who pollinate, and those near-butterfly's who think our sweat is the same thing and drop by to and wipe off some of that near-grass exudation.

      A world, even one we can breath in unassisted, where we didn't co-evolve is like a world where everybody dies at the slightest hint of a peanut, and peanuts everywhere.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    36. Re:Fermi Paradox by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Discovering and using radio was one of the steps on our journey but how can you be sure that it will be for every civilization journeying towards advancement. Stick your pedantry up your arse - anyone with any common sense at all could see I wasn't referring to alien puddles of goo you sad smelly twat.

    37. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming an early 21'st century technology. In the not to distant future, we will find it far easier to engineer ourselves to live on other worlds than to engineer other worlds for us to live on.

    38. Re:Fermi Paradox by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      my power bill (and thus also CO2 emissions) went up noticeably....It seems much better to donate that money to poverty relief.

      Because, larger populations of wealthier humans will volunteer not to exhale CO2.

      I'm not grouchy...I've just been drawn out that way.

    39. Re:Fermi Paradox by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      A planet need not necessarily have developed life to be habitable... certainly more habitable than the moon, at any rate. Although oxygen would need to be supplied. But personally I believe that if we were to find friendly environmental conditions, then we are almost certain to find life of some sort. It has been around now for over half of our planet's existence, and perhaps longer, so I think the odds are better than 50/50.

      I don't know about your "limited success"... humans have occupied nearly every land environment in the world since ancient days, except for Antarctica and a small area right around the North Pole. There are a few relatively small places that are too hot and dry, and a few that are too cold, but other than those you will find native humans. Nearly anywhere that water is easily available and some places where it isn't so easy.

      I will grant you the useful atmosphere part, since even if the place were otherwise hospitable, supplying breathing oxygen artificially is probably not very feasible. But... if we had an earthlike planet (similar size, similar density, presence of water), approximately the right distance from a star similar to the sun, then some of those other things take care of themselves: magnetosphere, for example.

      But again, I think you are being overly pessimistic. Considering that we have only had the capability to detect earthlike planets for a little over a year, and we have already found some that are at least the right size, I think the likelihood of our finding an earthlike body in the relatively near future is good. After all, we have a lot of places to look. And we even have the capability of telling whether it has significant oxygen in the atmosphere and liquid water... put together, almost sure signs of life. Not much need to visit there first. And by the time we were technologically able to go there, we would know a lot more about it.

    40. Re:Fermi Paradox by tftp · · Score: 1

      what value would we get out of colonizing the moon. Or Venus or Mars? [...] We can't even bring ourselves to build reasonable colonies underwater on earth, or at the south pole

      There are plenty of people who would be glad to leave their tyrannical states and go somewhere else, to create another state of their own, not as corrupt yet.

      But there is no free place on Earth to do that. All usable land belongs to someone. Antarctica is so harsh and inhospitable that it probably rivals the Moon (get out without a suit and you die.) There is far more economic advantage to have a city on the Moon than in Antarctica.

      Creating such a state under the sea is definitely a possibility, but it's quite expensive. Probably cheaper than doing the same on the Moon, but they both are orders of magnitude more costly than a bunch of wannabe settlers can collect. Eventually, though, underwater cities will be built - it makes plenty of sense; there are natural resources in oceans, and many people are used to living in steel (stone) caves already, so what's the difference? A city a mile underwater is also very safe from weather, and can be built to tolerate large earthquakes by making the buildings sufficiently light; if their supports fail they simply slowly drift some 100' to the bottom instead of crashing hard. Such a city is also safe from asteroids striking the planet.

      technology is not going to allow us to circumvent the speed of light.

      That can be said only if you have the Complete Theory of Everything in your posession. Besides, the 'c' limit is valid (if it is) in this Universe; we don't know that about other Universes. For example:

      In the first 1E-35 seconds (that is 0.00..(34 zeroes)..01 seconds after the big bang the universe expanded to a diameter of something like 1 meter carrying all matter with it. So it was expanding something like 3E26 (that is 3 followed by 26 zeroes) times faster than the speed of light! (link)

      That is because the space itself expanded faster than light. Find a way to create (and destroy) space at will and you have FTL. This, actually, had been proposed many decades ago by at least one SF writer.

    41. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a lot of people think that extending humanity's reach is pretty damn valuable. You might not agree but different people have different values.

      But what does it mean to "extend humanity's reach" if whatever life-form that we send into other systems eventually evolve into something that we cannot interbreed with? Make no mistake, this will happen after just a few million years (if that long). Also, what connection will they have with us? Will they even remember or acknowledge our existence, or will we here on Earth be the stuff of myths and legends to our successors on other planets? Keep in mind that we don't know how the pyramids in Egypt were built, and that's nowhere near a million years ago, and yet we've already lost that knowledge. What other knowledge will we, and our successors, lose in a million years?

    42. Re:Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think finding an Earth-like world within 100 light years is "unlikely"? We have already discovered worlds with liquid water. Unfortunately, so far they have been far too large for us... but that's just because the big ones are easier to find. In just the last year we have found several planets closer to earth's size.

      It's not enough to just find an earth-like world and assume that we'll be able to live there. You have to find one that has a density much like ours. You must find one with enough iron to create the electromagnetic shield to keep out some of the harmful radiation from striking the surface. You must find one that also has enough mass to keep an atmosphere from floating away. You must also find one with a good oxygen ratio in the atmosphere, and one that doesn't have anything that's poisonous to us. You must also find one with a stable enough orbit and rotation such that extreme temperature variations doesn't kill us off (the moon handles this for us, keeping our rotational poles in a stable pattern [most planets have very unstable rotational patterns] and it seems like a very rare event to have a satellite this massive in comparison to the planet it orbits).

      It's not just the size and the fact that it has water that makes earth so habitable for us - there are a host of other things (surely many other things that I didn't mention) that other planets must have for us to find it palatable. So yes - I'd find it highly unlikely that we'll find a suitable planet for our survival within 100 light years.

  6. This is good... by VendettaMF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is good news. And overdue.

    We've been a stupidly noisy duck for far too long.

    --
    kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    1. Re:This is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes this is way good. I'm hoping we can get rid of anything (including cellphones) that uses radio, and switch off city lights at night like they used to in ww2 along the coasts. It's like changing from a screaming toddler to a more cautious person, and perhaps we'll notice something along the change.

    2. Re:This is good... by Bastian227 · · Score: 1

      What if the aliens are just waiting for us to go all digital before they deal with us?

    3. Re:This is good... by Xinvoker · · Score: 1

      But with your radio waves shut down, noone can hear you scream!

    4. Re:This is good... by LT+Stephen · · Score: 0

      I think they already heard us scream out with the EMP of all the nuclear weapons we have set off. That has to be stronger than a TV signal.

  7. so what by Punto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the closest aliens are at least thousands of light years away, they haven't "missed" our radio signals, they still haven't heard them yet. And they'll have like 100 years of signals to figure us out.

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:so what by Supurcell · · Score: 3, Funny

      And when they do see those signals, they will shit themselves when they see how good we are at killing aliens and promptly call us up to surrender.

  8. perhaps by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering how the meeting between two civilizations, one more avanced than the other has generally gone badly for the majority of human history, it may not be such a bad idea to keep ourselves quiet until their intentions are shown to be peaceful/cooperative.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean one more *violent* than the other...

    2. Re:perhaps by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, more advanced.

      Violence doesn't matter, since it makes no difference whom initiates, so if the less advanced civilization is more violent the end result is the same as if the more advanced civilization is more violent.

  9. Light pollution by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    Since we still pump large amounts of light into space from street-lighting around the world would that not be easier to detect than a few encoded radio signals?

    Even if they detect a digital signal they still have to demodulate it to this obscure 'base-2' encoding we use over here because it works well with our equipment they have either grown out of or never discovered, after that they might decide to visit asciitable dot com to find out what it actually means.

    Maybe we can buy out Arecibo and continuously waste a few megawatts at broadcasting a "Hello?! Can you hear me now?" analogue recording

    1. Re:Light pollution by l2718 · · Score: 1

      This "light pollution" is completely negligible. First of all it is entirely negligible compared with the sunlight reflected from Earth. Secondly, the sun is orders of magnitude brighter. Seeing a small planet that close to the sun is nearly impossible. Adding 0.001% [number made up by me] to the planet's luminosity won't make a difference.

    2. Re:Light pollution by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      How many orders of magnitude more visible light do we emit than radio waves? In about 20 years we'll have the technology to directly image an extrasolar planet on a fairly consistent basis. Not long after that, we'll probably be able to detect artifical lights on the surface of an extrasolar planet on its night side. This is probably far easier than trying to fish out their extremely diluted, planet directed signals.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Light pollution by l2718 · · Score: 1

      I think the signal-to-noise ratio matters more than the luminosity here. The signal due to "artifical lights on the surface of an extrasolar planet on its night side" will surely be swamped by simple fluctuations in the output of the star. IANAAstrophysicist but my guess is that the radio background from the sun is far weaker than the visible light background .

    4. Re:Light pollution by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 1

      In about 20 years we'll have the technology to directly image an extrasolar planet on a fairly consistent basis.

      Will we? Images of Pluto are still pretty underwhelming. It may be small and poorly lit, but it's a heck of a lot closer to us than any exoplanet.

    5. Re:Light pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many orders of magnitude more visible light do we emit than radio waves?

      The visible light we emit is negligble compared to radio waves. Think for instance of a cruise ship at sea (I'm into sailing so this is the analogy that hit me immediately). In order to hear its 25 W VHF radio the ship must be visible and even on a clear night and when such a ship is close enough for at least half the decks still be theoretically visible above the horizon, the lights from thousands of cabins, lanterns, nightclubs etc. do not make it visible but its radio transmissions are crystal clear. 25 W radio vs. thousands of lights that are at least 25 W each!

      In about 20 years we'll have the technology to directly image an extrasolar planet on a fairly consistent basis. Not long after that, we'll probably be able to detect artifical lights on the surface of an extrasolar planet on its night side. This is probably far easier than trying to fish out their extremely diluted, planet directed signals.

      If a civilization out there currently inhabits a planet so that they actually do emit more artificial light than radio waves, they'll probably discover radio before we develop any technology to detect artificial light from the surface so it's a safer bet to keep improving SETI@home and others instead. Besides, radio signals aren't directed.

    6. Re:Light pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we still pump large amounts of light into space from street-lighting around the world would that not be easier to detect than a few encoded radio signals?

      Zcjribaz: Hey, 'rup, I got a solar system with a planet whose absorption spectrum, relative to its sun, shows tons of free diatomic oxygen in its atmosphere. Gotta be life there. Otherwise the oxygen would react with all the other crap on the surface and precipitate out as rust, right?
      Freljrup: Zude, look at the emission lines. I don't know what kind of chemistry's going on up there to produce the free oxygen, but faint as it is, it's proof that it's also vaporizing sodium. Anything based on carbon would have been incinerated.

      If they're watching for the planet's transit of the star, they can only see the night side of the planet. The ring of atmosphere absorbs some of the Sun's light, and they see that we have oxygen, but they're always looking at the night side of Earth, so the streetlights are always on.

      If they're watching us from above (or below) the plane of the ecliptic, they get a mix of absorption (sunlight filtered through the atmosphere, reflected from the planet's surface, and bounced through the atmosphere again before it hits their telescopes) and emission (sodium vapor streetlamps on the night side of the planet) spectra.

    7. Re:Light pollution by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The best option to me seems to be to take a mass spectrograph of their atmosphere as the planet passed between their sun and us. We can do that now

      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080319-extrasolar-methane.html

      E.g. if aliens had technology comparable to ours today they'd be able to see that the Earth's atmosphere had lots of oxygen. Free oxygen in the atmosphere seems to me to be a good sign of life.

      So they could scan all planets in range for non equilibrium atmosphere and then direct a high energy laser beam that would be bright but harmless from our point of view. They could use that to send a signal - it would start off pulsing out prime numbers (or something else obviously non natural) and gradually build up to maths and physics.

      Now since we've only been able to do this recently it seems like another civilisation doing it would likely be more advanced than ours. So the physics would be interesting, to say the least.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  10. myopic by quantumpineal · · Score: 1

    If any alien civilization were capable of communicating or visiting here, I doubt these issues will be a problem?

    --
    ~don't feel threatened by my pineal~
    1. Re:myopic by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      If any alien civilization were capable of communicating or visiting here, I doubt these issues will be a problem?

      If they were sane, they would put up a big sign outside our solar system saying: stay away from these assholes.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  11. Only if you were over optimistic by Asadullah+Ahmad · · Score: 0

    This might have been true if were being really optimistic and assuming that there was Intelligent life within 100 LY of our solar system.

    I really hope and speculate that whatever Extraterrestrials might be trying to listen to us, or someone else for that matter, they will be using something a bit more advanced that our latest technology and form of communication.

  12. Correct me if I'm wrong... by AnotherUsername · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was under the impression that historically, our radio and tv signals didn't even make it to Alpha Centauri. Unless we suddenly discover extra-terrestrial life inside of our solar system, does the switch to digital really change anything? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. Happy?

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      What about light pollution? Not sure about the absolute lower limits of detection, but if anyone swings a probe inside Neptune's orbit with even our lame levels of detection capability, they're going to see funny patterns of optical light emission on the 3rd planet, like a fungal growth or something.

    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Radio waves spread in accordance with the inverse square law. For every doubling in distance traveled, they become 1/4 as strong. It may well be that the *practical* limit for detecting our own tv/radio signals is somewhere near Alpha Centauri, but that's a limit imposed by our own equipment. The signal propogates forever, or at least until it's stopped by another planet/star/comet/dust/whatever. And space is mighty vast and mighty empty.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by bkeahl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Alpha Cenrauri is about 4-1/2 light years away. Electromagnetic energy would get there in 4-1/2 years. As a result, they've long since lost interest in I Love Lucy (if anyone is there and listening). There are about 50 stars within 15 light years. We can't uncap that bottle, so we'll have a stream of broadcast television and radio signals continuing on the journey, lasting for decades. The fact we stop doesn't mean we're suddenly invisible. We've left some tracks in the sand on a calm beach. I'm pretty confident we don't have an invasion fleet coming at this point in the game, but if they are, I bet they think we taste like chicken.

    5. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      It's more than just a limitation of our own equipment but the fact that the universe is already full of radio emitters we call "stars". Our radio transmissions would have to be above the noise level to be detected. That noise floor will vary depending on the type of signal transmitted and what the noise emitters relative distance and power output are. Once an observer gets a certain distance from Earth the radio transmissions we have created will very likely be indistinguishable from noise. Then the observer will have to deal with the noise from other nearby sources of radio energy. If that observer is on a planet with radio transmitters of their own, and near a sun of their own, the radio energy we transmit will fade into the noise very quickly.

      I've heard one astronomer claim that our radio emissions will have faded into the noise of our own sun even before they have left the solar system. If that is true an observer would have to pass through the solar system and be listening for a radio transmission in order to know we are here.

      I used to believe that we'd be heard by some far away alien civilization but my current knowledge of physics tells me that just will not come to be. I suppose in some distant time frame humans will travel off into space and make use of radio communications far from our sun, with a regularity and power output so as to appear as unquestionably artificial, we might raise awareness of an alien civilization but then again being able to detect such is quite different than the capability to respond.

      Imagine that if we, sometime in our lives, find what is believed to be the radio transmissions from another planet. How long would it take to verify the existence of that civilization? How much longer would it take to develop the technology and infrastructure to respond in kind? It could take centuries just to do a proper radio "handshake".

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      Well, if we just stopped being silly and would just build an intergalactic Pringles canantenna...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pringles_cantenna

    7. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes radio signals about three years to reach Alpha Centauri.

      The signals that have the capability to cross interstellar space have been sent out for decades, so our existence has been clear for many years now.

    8. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Sean+Hederman · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. Our transmissions will gradually get weaker and weaker, but there is nothing that stops them. Each photon emitted by our transmissions will travel forever until it hits something. Some of them may hit dust grains close by, some may make it to other galaxies, some may travel on till the end of Time/Big Bang/Insert Apocalypse of your choice here.

  13. OMG! Haven't anyone watched the X-Files! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Considering that most aliens are hellbent to destroy Earth (according to a reliable media source in Hollywood), maybe going silent would be a good idea?

  14. More to the point by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do we WANT to be detected? Oh it would be wonderful if we could communicate with intelligent life somewhere other than earth (I am assuming there is intelligence here). But what if the species we contact are not peaceful? What if they're out looking for worlds to enslave? There certainly would be an advantage in staying quiet and being the first to "discover" a new civilization without giving up our own presence. That way we could study these new beings before deciding whether to risk contact or not.

    Likewise, the same logic can be applied to an alien species. Why would they trust us? Why would they carelessly beam their presence out into space, not knowing who was going to listen in? It is certain, given our past history (you know, that part about strong humans usually ending up wiping out weaker ones through conquest), that we ourselves aren't exactly trust-worthy. Maybe they have heard us, and we failed the test, and we will never meet our neighbors. That is one possibility the "Drake Equation" fails to account for. Maybe we will be permanently assigned to the universe's "time out" box, because of our bad behavior - and we'll never know.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:More to the point by bhartman34 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is one possibility the "Drake Equation" fails to account for.

      There's a lot the Drake Equation fails to account for. As a mathematical estimate, it's fairly useless. Its chief contribution to science (although some might question whether this is a contribution) is that it gets people talking about extraterrestrial life.

    2. Re:More to the point by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      There's a lot the Drake Equation fails to account for. As a mathematical estimate, it's fairly useless. Its chief contribution to science (although some might question whether this is a contribution) is that it gets people talking about extraterrestrial life.

      Indeed, I think you'd have to stretch the idea of "science" pretty far to accommodate the Drake equation.

      People here often feel the need to debate whether climatologists can extrapolate climate a hundred years into the future based on huge quantities of data. But they're perfectly willing to consider seriously the value of an equation where a lot of the terms are extrapolated based on one data point. And it we would need to know a hell of a lot more about that data point than we do about climate science to even know whether we're assigning the probability from that data point with any accuracy.

      But whenever discussion of this equation comes up, everyone carries on as if this were normal science. It's not science when you just make up values for most of the terms in your calculations (and the terms you do know could easily be off by several orders of magnitude) -- that's just random speculation.

    3. Re:More to the point by bhartman34 · · Score: 1

      In Drake's defense, he apparently never intended it to be taken as a mathematical formula, per se. He was using it as a tool to discuss the factors that affected whether we would ever find intelligent life outside of Earth. The relationship between the factors is probably sound, but it's folly to think the Drake Equation can ever be "solved" such that we would know what the actual probability of finding intelligent life in the galaxy actually was. On the other hand, I would argue that the Drake Equation probably inspired a lot of actual science, because it got people thinking about the possibility of extraterrestrial life and taking it seriously as a scientific pursuit. To even know how to look, you have to get into the factors that might affect detecting extraterrestrial life.

    4. Re:More to the point by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      There's a lot the Drake Equation fails to account for.

            Oh I agree it's certainly not a "formula" in the true sense of the word. It's more like a thought experiment or an exercise in philosophy. It makes a lot of sense in what it tries to demonstrate, but it's certainly not something you can build upon. I was just making a point - if the xenos we're looking for don't want to be found, it's going to be a lot harder to find them than just pointing a telescope at the sky and listening. Certainly I don't think the Drake equation is a scientific law - just a logical "sounding" hypothesis that we will never be able to fully test or prove.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  15. Find US? by Rammed+Earth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones? The Native Americans, the Mayans, the Incas, the Australian Aborigines, the tribes of South America, the natives of Pacific Islands, to name a few, all cry out to humanity to avoid at all costs encounters of the first, second, and third kinds. We have no reason to expect anything but annihilation from advanced alien races- either they are truculent and violent like we are, or they will destroy us as a service to the rest of the galaxy. We do not wants aliens to find us!

    1. Re:Find US? by dspratomo · · Score: 1

      However do we wants to find aliens? (after watching avatar movie, and reading your thread, I'm pretty sure yes we do)

      --
      Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt, and dance like you do when nobody's watching
    2. Re:Find US? by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones?
      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when human civilizations who feel superior encounter ones they consider lesser?
      The Native Americans, the Mayans, the Incas, the Australian Aborigines, the tribes of South America, the natives of Pacific Islands, to name a few, all cry out to humanity to avoid at all costs encounters of the first, second, and third kinds.
      We are so ignorant and arrogant that we expect other civilizations to think and act exactly like us (which led to the above in the first place) so they must be truculent and violent like we are, and they will destroy us as a service to the rest of the galaxy because that is what we would do. Let's just hope aliens don't find, or if they do, avoid us.

       

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    3. Re:Find US? by wylf · · Score: 1

      yeah, i watched the terrible remake of "the day the earth stood still" as well.

      (c.f http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/quotes#qt0524739)

    4. Re:Find US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those where technologically inferior civilizations in other aspects we may have been and quite possibly still are inferior.

    5. Re:Find US? by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones? The Native Americans, the Mayans, the Incas, the Australian Aborigines, the tribes of South America, the natives of Pacific Islands, to name a few, all cry out to humanity to avoid at all costs encounters of the first, second, and third kinds. We have no reason to expect anything but annihilation from advanced alien races- either they are truculent and violent like we are, or they will destroy us as a service to the rest of the galaxy. We do not wants aliens to find us!

      Not a problem, unless they're very long lived or really have found a faster than light travel mechanism. Civilizations that were conquered on earth were all reachable well inside a human lifetime. What's more the civilizations all had things of value to the invaders - land, resources, natives to indoctrinate in their religion. Any civilization sufficiently advanced to invade would likely be able to obtain their resources more locally, and colonise more local uninhabited worlds. I would hope they're past superstition, but who knows.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:Find US? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones?

      No, as it turns out, you're the first person ever to consider it. The first person in the entirety of human history. Even as I type, the Nobel Committee are holding an emergency session to create a new honour that's significant enough to even begin to recognise the enormity of your insight. Do not leave your home: a team of crack sculptors are en route to measure you up for your 400 foot tall solid gold statue.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Find US? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      If they are as alike us as the Kzin then our only hope is that they attack too soon. If they are as alike us as we are to ants then we have nothing to fear.

    8. Re:Find US? by pydev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones?

      That analogy doesn't work. Among other things, aliens can't mate with us and they're probably not going to carry pathogens that can infect us, and those two factors strongly influenced the outcome of European colonization.

      (Like Europeans, aliens may be religious nuts bent on destroying our religion and replacing it with their own, but that seems somewhat unlikely.)

    9. Re:Find US? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Has anyone considered the possibility that the things mentioned here, and in the parent, have been stated about 50 times already in this same thread?

    10. Re:Find US? by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

      However do we wants to find aliens?

      Call it a fantasy. It's a fact that many women, for example, have rape fantasies. OTOH they do not want to be actually raped.

    11. Re:Find US? by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      You know, if they looked like the Kilrathi from Wing Commander, or those hot blue chicks from Avatar - I saw it would be worth it.

      I for one welcome our super sized Smurfette overlords.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    12. Re:Find US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't crack sculptors make a 400 foot tall solid crack sculpture?

    13. Re:Find US? by Yaotzin · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Name one movie when aliens come in peace and really mean it? Well, apart from District 9, but that doesn't seem like a good scenario either. I say we go dark until our battle cruisers are operational.

      --
      Error: No error occurred
    14. Re:Find US? by khallow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea, if anything you want bling sculptors. He'll also receive a twenty pound gold necklace with three inch lettering that says "I FUCKING SAVED THE HUMAN RACE" to wear on formal occasions.

    15. Re:Find US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But nobody ever considers the possibility we might be the first advanced civilization, or the most advanced one still existing. It could be a long shot, but somebody has to be first.

    16. Re:Find US? by cyberthanasis12 · · Score: 1

      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones?

      No, as it turns out, you're the first person ever to consider it. The first person in the entirety of human history. Even as I type, the Nobel Committee are holding an emergency session to create a new honour that's significant enough to even begin to recognise the enormity of your insight. Do not leave your home: a team of crack sculptors are en route to measure you up for your 400 foot tall solid gold statue.

      The sad news is that, though what the grand parent said is obvious, large masses of people in the "advanced" countries have not considered it. Or they say that a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization, will also be morally sufficiently advanced (against every single fact in history).

    17. Re:Find US? by cyberthanasis12 · · Score: 1

      (Like Europeans, aliens may be religious nuts bent on destroying our religion and replacing it with their own, but that seems somewhat unlikely.)

      I would reconsider if I were you. The Vatican says that aliens are not incompatible with catholicism (and they were created, like us, by the same God).

    18. Re:Find US? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      LOL. No, really. Not just saying that. Made my day. Keep typing. Slashdot wants more characters... like you!

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    19. Re:Find US? by pydev · · Score: 1

      I would reconsider if I were you.

      Reconsider what exactly?

      The Vatican says that aliens are not incompatible with catholicism (and they were created, like us, by the same God).

      I'm not sure what you're getting at. Catholicism is responsible for the the destruction of the civilizations of South America (among others), so Europe and Catholicism are a prime example of destruction of other civilizations based on religious motives.

      If Europe and Catholicism are models, then aliens may simply send us gray goo that tries to convert us to the flying spaghetti monster and ends up killing anybody who refuses.

    20. Re:Find US? by tftp · · Score: 1

      We are so ignorant and arrogant that we expect other civilizations to think and act exactly like us [...] so they must be truculent and violent like we are

      It is not unreasonable as a first guess. We are violent because it is our survival mechanism. Top predators have few offspring, they can't afford large losses. Rabbits multiply like rabbits, they depend on that instead of their teeth and claws.

      The question is really when (or whether) the society transitions from violent survival mode to relaxed, peaceful mode. That's not easy to answer because our behavior is coded in our genes. Some civilizations, like Klingons, may even cherish this trait. We don't know how likely it is, but the one sample we have - ourselves - tells us that it's not an easy answer. And we can't even say that we are unique in our violent roots - there doesn't seem to be anything unnatural in what we do and how we ended up this way.

    21. Re:Find US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the fact that we already have some capability of analyzing the composition of the atmospheres of planets that are lightyears away, I'd say that any alien civilization with the capability to visit us, can detect us no matter what we do to hide. I'd even say that a civilization with that capability can probably prepare a suitable habitat for specimens in their labs or zoos...

    22. Re:Find US? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I believe you just won the sarcasm award.

  16. Serves those aliens right by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    I guess they should have paid their TV bill.

    1. Re:Serves those aliens right by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      If the Aliens don't pay for watching earth TV that's clearly grounds for RIAA to search their hard drives for unlicensed earth music.

      I'm not grumpy...I'm just drawn out that way.

  17. Woot alien 50s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all we'll from aliens is their equivalent to 50s sitcoms and Grand Ole Opry.

  18. Why can't we hear ET? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep asking this question: Why can't we detect ET's transmissions?

    Now I know. They do digital as well.

    1. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by Toonol · · Score: 5, Funny

      I keep asking this question: Why can't we detect ET's transmissions?

      DRM'ed, no doubt.

    2. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by starbugs · · Score: 1

      I keep asking this question: Why can't we detect ET's transmissions?

      Now I know. They do digital as well.

      Not just that.

      They've realized what we will also eventually realize.

      They use cat6 cable.
      Especially after we started sending all those damn microwaves into space and their wifi stopped responding.

    3. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      I keep asking this question: Why can't we detect ET's transmissions?

      DRM'ed, no doubt.

      Dude, if only that were true! You'd find aliens just by searching the pirate bay!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    4. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. I think I now know how the world will end.

      We keep trying to figure out the signal and we are eventually successful. Then we are immediately slapped with an anti-circumvention lawsuit, delivered by nuclear-powered alien robot lawyers from the RIAAA (Recording Industry Association of Alien Artists). When we don't show up at the scheduled Alpha Centauri courthouse date and can't pay the $100 trillion quatloo default fine we'll forfeit all our assets (i.e. the Earth).

      We need to stop this SETI thing now.

    5. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by d3m0nCr4t · · Score: 1

      If aliens ever landed and they tell they have been monitoring our transmissions for years, they'll probably get promptly arrested by the RIAA for not paying the content... :p

    6. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found Alien, Aliens, Alien III and Alien Resurrection. Which one we looking for?

    7. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep asking this question: Why can't we detect ET's transmissions?

      DRM'ed, no doubt.

      Dude, if only that were true! You'd find aliens just by searching the pirate bay!

      What makes you think there are no aliens on TPB?

  19. Is SETI hopeless? by bob5972 · · Score: 1

    So if the trend of our communications technology is to become less noticeable to space people, and we assume aliens follow a similar course of technological development, does SETI have any hope of finding anything?

    1. Re:Is SETI hopeless? by l2718 · · Score: 1

      This depends on whether we decide to continue to send radio signals to space deliberately even after we don't need to do it incidentally.

    2. Re:Is SETI hopeless? by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Sure. There was always a window of detection. One that would close under certain circumstances such as: 1) the destruction of the human race 2) catastrophic loss of human technical skill 3) destruction of the extraterrestrial species we hope to detect or 4) catastrophic loss of extraterrestrial technical skill. This just means that the window also closes when the extraterrestrial species we hope to detect advances beyond broadcast emissions we can detect.

      Since that last bit is unlikely to happen the day after they develop the broadcast technology, there is still a chance. Of course, there was always the chance that they'd just skip right to a more efficient technology that we can't detect. But thats life.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    3. Re:Is SETI hopeless? by bkeahl · · Score: 1

      Nobody says other civilizations will move to quieter technology as quickly as us. On the other hand, we may be the morons of the universe and all of our galactic neighbors are thinking "Thank God those idiots finally found the volume control!". Besides, we might have a need for some lesser developed civilization to exploit and we'll need to know where to find them!

  20. so advanced civilizations only use radio..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what makes anyone think if there are any other advanced civilizations out there that they are still using radio so we can hear them and not digital. Oh I forgot only we can think of such great technology.....all aliens if any are stupid monkeys hanging from trees.

  21. Brandon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good, now we don't have to worry about our world being conquered and our resources being devoured by an extraterrestrial race that heard us a couple galaxies over.

  22. Don't forget "Active SETI" by l2718 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There have been several attempts at sending radio messages into space specifically for communication purposes. Whether we keep that up or not is independent of our use of radio for intraplanentary communications.

  23. WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just love those who specialize, they have no concept of things out of their field, like say, broadcast Television, AM and Shortwave Radio which emit thousands of watts of rf into the universe 24/7/365.

  24. We can only hope it's Vulcans that find us by mykos · · Score: 1

    Would pretty much suck if it were Vogons.

  25. Why? by Tibia1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why are so worried about finding aliens right now? Its like a child trying to throw a paper plane to the top of a mountain. We need better technology and it will be here soon. Best not worry where we're pointing our signals at the moment.

    1. Re:Why? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Would you be terribly stunned to see a child trying to throw a paper airplane to the top of a mountain?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Why? by Tibia1 · · Score: 1

      Good point. In fact, it's starting to sound like a fun idea. With the right wind current...

  26. Maybe this is a good thing? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

    In nature, young defenceless animals which make too much noise and bring attention to themselves often get invited to dinner by predators. Discuss.

    1. Re:Maybe this is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In nature, young defenceless animals which make too much noise and bring attention to themselves often get invited to dinner by predators. Discuss.

      Alright, I shall. We're all going to die anyway. Getting killed by an advanced alien civilization is so goddamn cool, it should be your preferred way to go.

  27. What's a few orders of magitude out of trillions? by jandrese · · Score: 1

    The freespace loss from Earth to anywhere outside of the solar system is so incredible that fretting over a couple hundred dB out of literally trillions seems ridiculous, especially with the enormous noise source of the sun practically on top of us (in a galactic sense).

    I've always thought the idea that an ET would detect our Radio/TV signals to be romantic at best. This is also why SETI is pretty much pointless.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  28. ping. ping: you'r pwned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    loudest noises we make into space are radar-type pings to gauge distances of asteroids, etc.

    who makes those pings?

    astronomers!

    please guys, just cut the noise before the aliens come and make us stop.

  29. Not all signals are communications by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Military over-the-horizon radars put out a lot of power.

    1. Re:Not all signals are communications by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      We'll likely stop using those as well as better technology comes about, or if some senators get convinced that it harms bats/birds/whales/aardvarks/etc.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Not all signals are communications by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Just enough to make someone elsewhere say Wow!, but no more than that because they won't hear it again.

  30. could be sexual reasons by r00t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you're an alien dude who wants to score with the alien chicks, you might just impress them by collecting humans. You could embed a human in a chunk of pure carbon-12 diamond, mount that in an iridium ring, and slip it onto her tentacle. She might have thousands of tentacles.

    Maybe you collect humans to sell as an aphrodesiac. You puts the heads on top of a snack, kind of like sea urchin eggs on sushi.

    Maybe you lay eggs in the humans. Ever see that movie with the pods? The aliens take over human bodies. An infected human passionately embraces an uninfected human, and then the alien penis-thing (an ovipositer maybe?) bursts out of the infected person's forehead and stabs right into the uninfected person's forehead.

    Maybe you even mate with the humans. You keep them in your flying saucer and rape them with **all** your tentacles in every oriface. When the alien babies are ready to be born, the humans explode.

    1. Re:could be sexual reasons by Supurcell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sure would suck for an alien species to evolve to have to come all the way out to earth and use humans as part of their reproductive cycle.

    2. Re:could be sexual reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got any, uh, you know, uh ..... human horn?

  31. This is not the pun you're looking for. by fenix849 · · Score: 1

    I can't beleive i'm the first person to think of/post this, but:
    In space, nobody can hear you stream.

  32. Ignores other sources by bertok · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can't believe this came from educated scientists.

    Our communications signals are getting weaker, sure, but we still have other sources of clearly artificial radiation that are just as powerful as before. For example, military and weather radar. We regularly send out radar pusles powerful enough to compute the range to other planets in the solar system. Similarly, the Deep Space Network sends out powerful signals on various frequencies using highly directional beams when communicating with space probes.

  33. Radio, that's so last millenium... by meerling · · Score: 1

    To think that aliens will be using radio is like Geronimo thinking the people in Europe used smoke signals.

    Wish I could tell you what they are using, but as we haven't invented or noticed it yet, your guess is as good as mine.
    (For my guess I'll say they're using Quantum Filament Transmission Sequencers. Whatever that is.)

    I don't begrudge the idea of searching for alien radio signals, we might luck out and find one and actually recognize it for what it is, but I'm not holding my breath.
    (Besides, foreign art film reruns are bad enough, do you really want to see alien ones?)

  34. That's what's wrong with SETI by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been critical of SETI efforts for this reason. Much SETI effort was focused on looking for "carriers", big constant-frequency RF sources. Broadcast AM, FM, and analog TV (which was AM video, FM audio) have strong carriers, but that was hugely inefficient. About 80% of an analog TV station's power output wasn't conveying any information other than "We're here". As receivers improved, new RF technologies used weaker carriers, then suppressed carriers, and finally, with spread spectrum, dropped the whole concept of carriers. Many modern RF signals appear to be noise unless you understand the encoding. (The same thing happened to modems decades ago; at 300 baud, you heard tones; at 9600 baud and up, it sounded like white noise.)

    I once pointed out to a speaker at Stanford promoting some SETI scheme that they couldn't detect any emission that the FCC would now license for a new application. He admitted that was true. For our civilization, there was less than a century of high-powered carriers. That's a narrow window to hit for SETI purposes.

    Arguably, though, any sufficiently advanced civilization will monitor all RF passing through their solar system and will be able to detect anything which has a pattern which can be synched up. Although carriers are going away, all signals between distant points need some form of synchronization information. The synch information may be a tiny fraction of the transmitted data, but there has to be something upon which the receiver can lock.

    1. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at 300 baud, you heard tones; at 9600 baud and up, it sounded like white noise

      Those of us with a geek ear can not only hear that there is information in the 9600 baud signal, we can also identify it as a 9600 baud signal. (And to be correct, it's 9600 bps encoded using 2400 baud, not 9600 baud.)

      There is a huge difference in an information-carrying signal and noise.

    2. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the real problem with SETI is that by the time we get any signals from alien civilizations, they'll probably already be here.

      All they need is FTL travel! Or some alternative which does the same thing. *cough*tessarects*cough*

      But to bend space we'd at least need to understand exactly how the hell gravity works. Understand gravity --> understand space --> control space --> quasi-FTL travel.

      Speaking of space and gravity, I wonder exactly what the hell is in a black hole. Yes, yes, heavy gravity, singularity, etc, but I'm more interested as to exactly what type of element is formed when you crush countless atoms to infinite density. Elemental weight of infinity?

      Also, I would love a brick of light. I'm sure if you hypercompress light something interesting would occur.

    3. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by khallow · · Score: 1

      You are generously assuming FTL, wormholes, or some similar technology can exist. I see no reason for it especially since we have yet to discover either FTL transfer of information (a necessary prerequirement for FTL travel) or wormholes. My view is that particle accelerators cover a lot of theoretical ground here as do astronomical observations of supernova and neutron stars. Finally, there's the fact that we don't see evidence of past visits by extraterrestrials.

    4. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by dissy · · Score: 1

      I've been critical of SETI efforts for this reason. Much SETI effort was focused on looking for "carriers", big constant-frequency RF sources.

      So 50 years ago when SETI started, and humanity only had the ability to detect radio waves modulated in such a way as to be not naturally created, yet no space telescopes or other technology... What exactly would you have them do?

      It's like handing you a pair of binoculars, and telling you that you suck for only being able to see whats near you, and why the hell aren't you looking hundreds of miles away?

      The fact of the matter is, with the technology we had 50 years ago, looking for radio carriers was our only option. We had no methods to look for the signs we suspected an advanced technological civilization would use. All we had was radio.

      Your complaint is basically that magic doesn't exist. Hardly the fault of SETI, no matter how annoying to us that fact is :P

    5. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by mbone · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring radar. Radar tends to have very simple spectra, to make it easy to detect a weak reflected signal. There are excellent reasons why weather radars in the GHz range will be around for a long time to come (what other wavelength is small enough to reflect from raindrops but able to penetrate through clouds ?), and no apparent technical reason for such radars to use spread spectrum.

      And, by the way, the FCC had no problem approving NEXRAD, with 750 KW narrow band transmitters.

    6. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the exact way I feel about it too. Instead of looking for one strong carrier frequency from a source, they really do need to look at a spread. And if they get timescale resolution right, the granularity of an artificial signal should pop out. (All the peaks and troughs visible in the carrier frequencies should start to sync up. This pattern should even be visible with through a layer of light to moderate noise.)

      In fact, spread spectrum would actually be a better way to intentionally send signals for detection by other possible intelligence. Instead of pumping all your energy just to support a continous single carrier signal with a tone or waveform, you're only worried about the peak output of your spread's frequencies which is just a nice and fast simple pop or click. A sufficiently large capacitor bank should allow for quite a bit of signal reach while having a fairly economic average power draw. In fact power demand would be more related to how fast you want to send the information rather than how far you want it to go.

      The funny thing is that the technology needed to do this could have been used by the early radio pioneer Marconi himself. (And it's likely Tesla did have a few R/C experiments that were based on this approach.) Just make a set of tuned spark gap transmitters. Then trigger the "pop" on each frequency with an electromechanical mechanism, which could be programmed with a music box wheel or a piano roll. If you have a bunch of frequency specific recievers, it's very easy to send a code by where those peaks line up. (Maybe Spielburg was making a point about this years ago in his E.T. movie. The beacon apparatus made from a Speak n' Spell and other junk couldn't have been that complex.)

      As for what code to send for MITI/active-SETI? Just start repeat counting using binary math. Why? It makes a nice fractal pattern that is distinctive and not likely to be natural. (Although feel free to correct me if there are known naturally occuring binary counters.) Anybody who knows something about math and computers (electronic or electromechanical) should be able to spot it right away. If you want to say "Hello everybody! Here I am!", making some form of spread spectrum binary count repeater is likely the best way (other than a much less efficient single band carrier). Save the coded messages and other info for when you find a reply. (Which the KISS approach would mean finding another binary counter or reversed binary counter.)

      As where to look? I'd say review known radio pulsar sources. And that list is likely to be narrowed down by looking for ones that seem more unusual (like origin can't quite be placed to a star itself, given other factors.) This is because the lowest value(s) of a binary counter are going to be repeating the fastest, and are likely to be thrown into the bin with natural pulsar sources.

      The other thing that's wrong with the current mainstream SETI is that it's way too passive. If every intelligent lifeform in a galactic neighborhood takes the listen only approach, then none of their SETI programs will be fruitful. It requires two way communication to work. Somebody has to step up and say "Hello!" And the fear of bad actors is a lame excuse for not broadcasting; if they can get here, whether or not we broadcast doesn't matter. If I were part of an aggressive space empire, I know I'd give Earth a visit just because of the interesting and peculiar spectrographic properties in its reflected light. Precedent seems to bear this out too. It's not like the Europeans were looking for smoke signals from the natives before they overran and colonized the Americas.

    7. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by mbone · · Score: 1

      Arguably, though, any sufficiently advanced civilization will monitor all RF passing through their solar system and will be able to detect anything which has a pattern which can be synched up. Although carriers are going away, all signals between distant points need some form of synchronization information. The synch information may be a tiny fraction of the transmitted data, but there has to be something upon which the receiver can lock.

      Not necessarily. If VLBI can detect radio noise from Quasars, it can detect radio noise from ETI with the same sensitivity.

      If you use phase interferometry, you can get in principle the same SNR from an unknown incoming signal as from a matched filter decoder, and use all of the received power; the unpredictable signal power, as well as the more predictable synch information and carrier. All you need to optimize SNR is a knowledge of the signal bandwidth (assuming it is less than your record bandwidth). I have thought for a long time that SETI would move to a VLBI mode of operation, with widely separated receivers looking at the same patch of sky and cross-correlating the recorded radio noise. With a software correlator, and lots of CPU, you could do this for a wide variety of nominal bandwidths to look for different amounts of spread spectrum. You would also get an excellent rejection of terrestrial and satellite interference in the bargain.

    8. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by cyberthanasis12 · · Score: 1

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but It was my understanding that we look for signals that the aliens purposely transmit to make their existence known. All that is needed, is a slightly more advanced civilization than us (and a richer one too).

    9. Re:That's what's wrong with SETI by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Modern radars these days use a spread spectrum CDMA type modulation because of the immense advantages that it offers against things like out of range objects (too close or too far), spurious signals, and multipath.

      They way it works is you modulate your carrier with an orthogonal code like an M Sequence, which will autocorrelate nearly to zero unless it lines up exactly with itself. Then you keep correlating your received bit stream with your code, and when they line up correctly you get a peak corresponding to an object at a range. If you get more peaks at different points, they correspond to objects at different ranges.

  35. it's modulated by r00t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have large synchronized power grids. They'll get a signal that's 2x the line frequency. As the Earth turns, you get modulation of various sorts: frequency, phase, amplitude.

    Amplitude goes down for oceans, and up for land. You get more 100 Hz for the Old World, and more 120 Hz for the New World. As different country-sized areas with the same line frequency pass into view, you get phase change.

    It all has a nicely repetitive 24-hour period.

    1. Re:it's modulated by maxume · · Score: 1

      By the time you get a little ways away from Earth, the power grid isn't even there.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:it's modulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll get a signal that's 2x the line frequency.

      Er, why? Your 1000KHz AM radio station doesn't have to broadcast a signal at 500KHz for you to receive it at 1000KHz. Are you thinking of fluorescent lights or non-linear harmonics?

    3. Re:it's modulated by Tisha_AH · · Score: 1

      They could hear that and think there is a pulsar in the neighborhood. They rotate at quite regular rates and generate a tremendous magnetic field.

      Some of the sounds of pulsars can be heard here;

      http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/Education/Sounds/sounds.html

      Power grids do transfer a tremendous amount of electro-magnetic energy into our planetary environment and with some effort I bet you could receive them from the moon and the nearby planets. Receiving a signal from well outside of our solar system would be complicated by the natural processes of our planets. "Sferics in our own atmosphere, the constant noise of Jupiter and Venus, the noise from our own star all are incredibly noisy at the lower frequencies.

      Unless someone was specifically listening to our star system, across the entire RF spectrum from 50 Hz up to around 300 GHz they would probably overlook any noises we are making now. To get tremendous gain factors out of antennas we make parabolic dishes large and this reduces the beam-width that you can send or listen to. Even with an array of moon based radio telescopes it would take an incredible amount of time to listen to our entire stellar neighborhood on a star-by-star basis.

      For a better understanding of signal losses with distance, look at the description on Wikipedia;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss

      For an understanding of antenna gain and beamwidth (directivity) look at this description in Wikipedia;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_gain

      --
      Tisha Hayes
    4. Re:it's modulated by r00t · · Score: 1

      My post was in response to one regarding the light from human activity being drowned out by the Sun.

      Our light isn't much compared to the Sun, but it's modulated. Across large areas of the Earth, nearly all the lights are powered by synchronized AC electrical supply. Most lights flash twice for each cycle.

    5. Re:it's modulated by tftp · · Score: 1

      Most lights flash twice for each cycle.

      However when connected to 3-phase power there are always two lights that are on for every one that is off.

      Also when discussing street lights, it's practical to note that the lights shine down, not up. Only the light that is reflected by dark, gray asphalt, or grass, or trees (10% maybe?) escapes into space. An alien astronomer could write it off as lava flows from volcanos, given the spectrum of HPS lights.

  36. Encryption in space by freedumb2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The smart aliens will use full encryption anyways so no way to tell any transmission apart from background radiation noise anyways. Think TrueCrypt plausible deniability ;)

    1. Re:Encryption in space by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Haha actually that's a pretty good thought. Good encryption should yield a signal resembling one of maximum entropy... meaning that it would hardly be distinguishable from noise.

      On the other hand, if it were not the data itself but the character of the signal that were detectable, that's another story altogether. For example, the equivalent of TCP/IP packets would be easily detectable as intelligent signals, regardless of the eventual content of those packets.

    2. Re:Encryption in space by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      And once we determined the contents of the packets, it would probably drive us half crazy trying to figure out the "message". Haha.

    3. Re:Encryption in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how long until I can get on the intergalactic simpsons child porn Tor network?

    4. Re:Encryption in space by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that for certain types of encryption we use random numbers generated from astronomical sources. What if all these so-called random numbers generated from so-called random noise, were instead the result of truly random encryption being sent out by alien civilizations. Haha, the irony.

      --
      My page.
  37. Don't you worry... by UnFaNa · · Score: 1

    Don't you worry! With technologies advancing and our "social skills" improving, we'll have figured out how to turn our planet into a giant cloud of rapidly expanding burning gas - or something like that - in no time. Everybody in the galaxy will be able to see us ;)

  38. Silly humans... by Tolvor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Silly humans... You shouldn't worry about whether other civilizations in distant star systems will detect your weak radio-spectrum emissions. That's isn't what we are scanning for in our extra-solar search.

    In the beginning you humans signaled with visual signals - for example hand gestures, light houses, national flags, and road-side billboards. These are great but have very limited range.

    Later you developed audio signaling for example speech, alarms, and air-raid horns. It has much further range and carries far more information, but degrades far more quickly over time.

    Still later you developed electrical signaling devices, like the telegraph and early 1900's era telephone wire. You could finally transmit information over a long distance.

    Later still your planet turned to the EM-band of communications. This included radio, television, radar, and a vast number of wireless devices. Your airwaves were crammed full of radio emissions leaking from your planet. Understand, these emission would barely be a carrier signal at 40 light years, and at 4000 light years would be a statistical anomaly on the EM band.

    Later still you went digital and worried that people distant space civilization wouldn't hear you. Distant civilizations listen for EM band traffic. As stated, it's too hard.

    If you continue to progress you will discover Distant Quantum Stimulation (the first step to efficient energy transmission). This *will* emit very strong EM-band emissions to space and is usually the sign of an emerging intelligence.

    Later still will come high-energy Quantum Split-pair Sympathetic Signaling Systems (QS^4). This will come about to overcome the vast light-speed time delay in signaling between distant planetary bodies. However in using this there is sympathetic movement by unrelated quantum-bits in other solar systems. Some of those have intelligent life that will take notice.

    Much much later, when you really start needing energy you will turn to Solar Photosphere Mining. This can either be "light" mining with light lenses and hot-cold energy channels (mega-batteries), or "heavy" mining like what you Earthlings call Dyson Spheres. Needless to say this significantly alters your star's appearance and can easily be seen at a distance.

    In the far distant future you may discover the uses of dark matter - after all it *does* make up the vast majority of the universe. You really should know that there are ways that it can be used. It has vast potential. However any alternation and modification of the great web that is dark matter can be detected far far away. Civilization far and wide will be able to detect such an occurrence and celebrate with the graduating stellar system it's true achievement.

    From here vast vistas await. There is no point in detailing them because there will be no point in searching for intelligence beyond your planet. This is because in improving your technology you also improve your capabilities. As you use those techniques more and better means of seeing further and understanding more become available.

    There is no use at the lamating of an obsolete technology. To do so is to lament the passing of coastal semaphore stations and bonfire posts to warn of impending raids by Viking longboats. Your planet does not spend much energy in trying to detect such now-questionable methods of communication. Similarly other galactic civilizations do not spend much time or energy scanning for EM-band radiation.

    Silly humans with their Very Large Arrays...

  39. oblig. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    US astronomer Frank Drake has told scientists at a special SETI meeting in London that earthlings are making it less likely that we will be heard in space.

    Curses! Yet another victim of the new AT&T's wireless service!

  40. Re:What's a few orders of magitude out of trillion by jessica_alba · · Score: 1

    lasers could easily out shine the sun

  41. I dont think SETI will work either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two problems with SETI, one realistic, one hypothetical.

    One, it's based one earth, Earth is noisy as hell, almost 90% of the signals that SETI picks up are terrestrial. The rest are cosmic objects, or our own satellites in orbit.

    Two, space is noisy, trillions upon trillions of stars, all are producing massive amounts of energy and radio waves, most of those come in relatively faint, now consider the average radio signal created on earth, even the most powerful one. Do you think amongst all that noise, once the radio signals leave the electromagnetic bubble created by the sun, that they're even significant amongst the onslaught of random radio waves? We will find out what happens when an earth based object leaves the bubble here in a few short years as the first few probes (Voyager, Pioneer, etc) venture beyond the bow shock. If we lose contact, we'll come to the sobering reality that no one can probably hear us, and vice versa. Only the most powerful signals, which come from stars, get through. Of course I'm not an astrophysicist, so I cant say this is the fact, but just knowing that a powerful radio source will trump a lower powered radio source here on earth, I'm pretty sure the same applies to the vacuum of space, even moreso due to a lack of air and water in the vast majority of space that would inhibit most signals, creating a mishmash of radio noise, on top of celestial objects.

  42. SETI is fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI is valuable because it detects what might be the only actual way to have any contact at all with an alien race- distant emission of photons, moving at the speed of light. If lightspeed is as much of a barrier as everyone thinks, then it's feasible that intelligent beings might try to communicate in this fashion.

    If aliens exist that are more advanced than us and are benevolent, then they'd probably have stopped by and said hello. We have to come up with a great deal of arguments as to why they wouldn't, all of them predicated on ideas like, well, they wouldn't want to mess with our society. If they were at all moral, they would, for sure. They could minimize or end human suffering and any "societal advancement" could be s

    Could be simulated on a machine. Hrm. That's more plausible than an "ancestor simulation".

    Anyway, if aliens exist and are more advanced than us and are malevolent, presumably we wouldn't be typing this stuff.

    In the "most realistic" scenario, the one where we assume the least things, SETI could realistically detect emissions sent with the purpose of being detected. That's our best bet.

  43. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes - however there is a solution. We could get all those people who used to work at NASA on the space flight programmes to look skywards and whine. We'll be heard, but no one will come here.

  44. WRONG by symes · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Economically, it might be more expensive keeping the invasion fleet at home - better to have them wander the galaxy picking fights under the aegis of securing inter-galactic democracy - nothing worse than having trained killers hanging out in the 'burbs. Or they might even be space nomads looking for suitable planets to stop off at to eat, get sexy and reproduce before carrying on through space. Or, Earth might be home to a resource that is exceptionally valuable, such as haemoglobin(?!) or raw brains, to their sprawling empire making the journey potentially profitable for inter-galactic venture capitalists. So there are plenty of reasons why we can expect aliens to come calling - in fact is is surprising it hasn't happened already.

    1. Re:WRONG by arevos · · Score: 1

      None of your scenarios are especially likely. Intergalactic travel is too energy-expensive to be a reasonable solution for any of the scenarios you outline.

    2. Re:WRONG by tftp · · Score: 1

      Intergalactic travel is too energy-expensive to be a reasonable solution for any of the scenarios you outline.

      I'm sure something like that was said to Columbus:

      On 1 May 1486, permission having been granted, Columbus presented his plans to Queen Isabella, who, in turn, referred it to a committee. After the passing of much time, these savants of Spain, like their counterparts in Portugal, reported back that Columbus had judged the distance to Asia much too short. They pronounced the idea impractical, and advised their Royal Highnesses to pass on the proposed venture.

      In 15th century a trip to Asia/Americas was too expensive for a king (and they were wrong about that too.) In 20th century a trip to Asia/Americas is cheap enough so that any working person can afford it. I wouldn't dare to opine about costs of future intergalactic trips.

  45. What about moonbounce? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    People throw massive amounts of RF at the Moon, with high-powered transmitters and highly directional aerials. Using the same highly-directional aerials you can receive the very faint echo of your signal reflected off the Moon. The reason it's faint is that most of it misses, and when it reflects off the convex curve of the Moon most of it diverges into space.

    Now, while this used to be used by various government and military comms people, it's mostly done by radio amateurs now, using equipment that wouldn't take over much of the average suburban back garden. If you threw the resources of a large radio telescope at it (like for example CAMRAS) then you could detect very tiny signals indeed.

  46. Thank you mr. expert on alien encounters by ciroknight · · Score: 1

    I just love how everyone on Slashdot thinks that they know what some alien race is thinking, as if they themselves were from some alien race and have the key to their rationale.

    What if the race is on a generation ship and just so happens to stumble across us on its interstellar cruise? "Hey, there's a planet with a whole lot of tasty looking critters and a chance for us to resupply" would be my inevitable first guess.

    And that's just one of a quadrillion different scenarios we could postulate for an alien encounter. You should put away your absolutes and your thoughts that 'humanity is superior', because we have no evidence to either. We can make plenty of good guesses, but if the Hungry Hippos of Halcyon 9 arrive on the cruise ship Horatio and they have a taste for the flesh of mammals, I hope they eat you first.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Thank you mr. expert on alien encounters by syousef · · Score: 1

      You're assuming plenty of things yourself. That a generational ship would divert for a new food supply. That we're not poisonous to them (and that they can determine this based on our broadcasts). They're very unlikely to even have a compatible biology, and it's MUCH easier to sythesise food locally. You've basically been watching too much sci-fi.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:Thank you mr. expert on alien encounters by tftp · · Score: 1

      I just love how everyone on Slashdot thinks that they know what some alien race is thinking, as if they themselves were from some alien race and have the key to their rationale.

      One of those keys is indeed available to us; it's called "logic." Logic should be, to our best knowledge, universal across this Universe and it applies to all species equally. When we say that "civ. A may be worried that civ. B is hostile" this is just a statement of logic and has nothing to do with either civ. - unless the A is totally incapable of comprehending the word "hostile". And to that I find it unlikely that a civ. can sail all the way to the "advanced" stage without encountering opposition, be it from nature or from sentient things.

      Logic is the foundation for math, and math is the foundation for science. A civilization can't become advanced without being well acquainted with logic. Therefore when faced with a problem of logic they will solve it just like we, or other civ. would do, given the inputs are the same or at least understood as variables.

      You should put away your absolutes and your thoughts that 'humanity is superior', because we have no evidence to either.

      Humanity, as matter of fact, is superior to animal kingdom. Historically, many groups of humans were superior to other groups. We know well how that works between humans. If we extrapolate this behavior onto other civilizations we always claim that it's a mere guess. But there is no law against guessing. Lacking more information, it is perfectly valid to presume (for some purposes) that aliens are just like us, because we have one sample of such species right here (and we have no samples of other, theorized species.)

  47. QRP The Frequency! by mbstone · · Score: 1

    Extraterrestrials are advanced beings who lead by example. In particular, they obey FCC Part 97, which states that one must use "the minimum power necessary to carry out the desired communications." We should follow their lead.

  48. Nerds Are Making It Hard For Girls To Find Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interestingly, the related girlfriend-calculation (discussed before, http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/1510229/Man-Uses-Drake-Equation-To-Explain-Girlfriend-Woes) makes the same error with the parameter L by applying the age of the nerd, instead of the sexually useful lifespan.

  49. So what's wrong about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does people complain when we finally reduced our electromagnetic pollution of the Universe?

    Would someone please think of the ALIENS!?!?

  50. The Drake Equation by Exitar · · Score: 1

    Currently gives the number of civilization with which is possible a contact equal to 2.31.
    This assume the parameter L (the expected lifetime of such a civilization for the period that it can communicate across interstellar space) equal to 10000.
    If now L has a value of 100 instead, the the number of civilization with which is possible a contact would be 0.0231.

    Time to move the funds from SETI to something that has a greater chance of producing results maybe?

  51. We still broadcast to deep space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked, we were controlling robots in Mars... While we might get more efficient in directing our media signals where we want them, the price of space exploration goes down as technology advances. In addition, there might be loads of reasons to send signals there but we just haven't invented them yet! I think that it is safe to say that 50 years from now or so, we are sending enough signals directed at space to more than make up for the reduction that is caused by more efficient signal directing. Definitiely so when we are talking about the timeperiod of many thousands of years.

  52. Any sufficiently advanced intelligence ... by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe there is a general principle here that goes beyond the technology at hand: any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from white noise.

  53. Didn't we learn anything from Douglas Adams? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    I think it's safe enough to beam out messages that advertise ourselves to any potential ETs that might at best ruin our civilization with contact, at worst invade and steal our resources.

    If a advanced civilization develops the ability to colonize space and cross interstellar distances... why exactly would they need anything from a biosphere at the bottom of a gravity well? Presumably they would be well adapted to space, have all they might need in terms of energy and resources, and no doubt would be more than capable of staying hidden from us if they so chose.

    Of course they may just come here out of scientific curiosity, which would necessarily mean a non-interference approach to data gathering.

    Simple economics, getting into and out of a gravity well is expensive.

    I'd sooner believe a Dyson sphere suddenly popping up around our star, or our gas giants being strip mined for useful elements (and the earth being taken out as colateral damage) than I would alien hordes showing up just to say "hi you're not alone" or to steal all our biomass and our beer recipes.

    So this brings me to one of Douglas Adams astute observations hidden in his sci-fi comedy. In Hitchiker's we have the parable of the Vogons destroying earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass. Which was really pointing out that advanced spacefaring species might have absolutely no economic interest in our biosphere.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  54. Pity the aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to feel sorry for the aliens. They'll be watching Lost for 5 years, hoping that it gets better. At the point that the questions are finally addressed, the series disappears from their air waves.

    I half expect them to invade just to buy the boxset.

  55. In another galaxy... sentients are wondering... by garompeta · · Score: 3, Funny
    In another galaxy, a frustrated physics professor is in charge in a project equivalent to SETI:

    "Stultz, I wonder if there is actually life out there. We've been centuries monitoring the neno-kurflichsk time-fabric disturbance detector that any technologically advanced civilization should be sending out if...if... they sentients do exist. I mean, it is third grade stuff, anybody knows that time-fabric can be disturbed instantly, we keep doing it simultaneously to all the atoms of the universe, and still nothing for CENTURIES. Can you believe it?"
    "Professor, I wonder... I have this crazy idea... maybe other other advanced civilizations use... radiowaves?"
    "Stultz, you are an idiot or what?"
    "I...I am just saying, maybe some less advanced civilizations..."
    "Pluuhlease, that is enough! Are you serious? You should go back to elementary school. Have you forgot that radiowaves travel at the speed of light??, it is more than obvious that it is not the most convenient way to communicate with other civilizations... unless you want to wait another lifetime to send your response, and to where should we point the antennas, huh?. Have you forgot that we are talking about ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES?? It would take centuries! Or even worse, those electromagnetic waves would be absorbed by black holes, bounced, even hit by the breshanistok matter! We would get nothing or everything scrambled, indistinguishable from white noise! Your question is simply retarded. We are trying to contact sentients, not idiots!"

    And professor Breshanistok stood up upset and the graduate student Stultz watched the glowing monitoring holoscreen scratching his head.

    1. Re:In another galaxy... sentients are wondering... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I agree, if we are going to try to communicate with ET, we should be using technology that we don't have. Give me some decent funding and I will get things going right away.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:In another galaxy... sentients are wondering... by line-bundle · · Score: 1

      Fantastic!

      Much like the short story "They're made of meat" by Terry Bisson.

      http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

    3. Re:In another galaxy... sentients are wondering... by garompeta · · Score: 1
      hahaha, I only knew the short movie version:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

      The original story is even better!

  56. Bad analogy by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    > Not too long ago, it was deemed completely impossible

    Yes, but this is a much different matter than faster-than-light travel. Ordinary flight wasn't deemed impossible because we had a model of the physical universe where the impossibility of ordinary flight was an axiom. That would have been pretty stupid if physicists had thought that, considering that birds are also heavier than air.

  57. who cares by Murdoch5 · · Score: 0

    who cares if someone on planet X hears what your mom made for dinner. Oh no they got her stuffed chicken recipe :-O

  58. It's moot. by jonadab · · Score: 1

    If there were anybody out there *half* as interested in communicating as we are, they'd have found a way to contact us by now.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  59. Good... by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

    Its about time those oval-eyed, crop-circle forming, et b*st*rds stopped eavesdropping on us. They should pay for their own cable.

  60. Other Colonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't Super advanced civilisations have colonies on other planets, other stars?
    In which case they would want to comunicate with them right...
    So they would have powerful transmitters....

    Anyway As far as I know you still need very powerful transmitters for radar. Especially a space based asteroid radar system.

  61. just as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hate to think what another culture would think of the drivel we call media today

  62. invasion? Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well guys think about that: an alien and aggressive empire look like probably such all military organizations in the earth. TOO SERIOUS. Mean only one thing: take broadcast comunication only for serious things. Military dont use broadcast coms for send music or for watch futurama. Probably they think that we use broadcast for told to "retard civilians" real stories and they think that hollwood movies are real. GOD WE ARE SAFE.
    we destroy the aggressive martians neighborhoods in war of the worlds
    we destroy a invasion with computer virus (???) in indipendence day
    we defend our mother earth a lot of times and we win against any sort of aliens. Thanks Hollywood lol
    That's mean that they have fear of us and they monitoring us and when they dont recieve any comunications to sol 3, they open a bottle of alien champagne and do a alien military party
    "WAHOOO HURRAAHH! somebody defeat this bustards humans! Now we are only the aggressive military alien specie in all galaxy!"
    ROTFL

  63. Not true for Radar by mbone · · Score: 1

    Basically what Frank Drake is complaining about is the disappearance of the carrier wave (the large spike of energy at the center of most broadcasts). Most broadcasts are indeed moving to a suppressed carrier, as the carrier carries no information.

    That is not, however, true for radar, at least for civilian radar, which typically has a very strong carrier for detection of the returned signal. While planetary radar from Arecibo (1 MegaWatt, 305 meter antenna) is without doubt our strongest signal, in most cases a distant receiver would only be in the beam for order 1000 seconds - a single signal lasting less than an hour is unlikely to be detected light years away.

    I think that our most detectable signal right now is the NEXRAD Doppler Weather radar, and similar systems in other countries. These are fairly dense arrays (159 in the US) and scan the horizon continuously with (for NEXRAD) a 750 KW beam from a 8.5 meter dish. While the Arecibo radar would appear roughly 1700 times stronger to any distant alien receiver, for roughly 6 hours twice per day any alien receiver anywhere in the Northern sky would be scanned over more or less continuously by one or more NEXRAD beams as it rose or set across the NEXRAD array. This large duty cycle makes it much more detectable than the planetary radars, which are highly unlikely to illuminate any particular point in the sky, ever. (This beam, being directed, is also a much better signal than TV broadcasts, of comparable power, but uniformly directed to the entire horizon at once.)

    So, I think that Frake Drake is worried a little unnecessarily. We are still pumping out a lot of power for aliens to see, if they are there and care to look.

  64. Seriously. by ral8158 · · Score: 1

    Good. Maybe people will stop wasting their time on SETI and putting their processors to use for something that's actually an immediate and local issue, like Folding@Home.

  65. i heard BEEEEEEP... by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 1

    (The same thing happened to modems decades ago; at 300 baud, you heard tones; at 9600 baud and up, it sounded like white noise.)

    BEEEEEEP, CHIRP, CHIRP, KTWANG, shhhhhh, SHHHHHHH!!!

  66. we need to use sub space like the SGU uses to send by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    we need to use sub space like the SGU uses to send data over space.

  67. It's True Then ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In space, nobody can hear you scream

  68. Re:What's a few orders of magitude out of trillion by jandrese · · Score: 1

    If we knew were to point them, and somebody was watching for exactly the right frequency at wherever we pointed it, for the absolutely microscopic amount of time (again in galactic sense) that we point it there.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  69. So what you're saying is that... by lanes · · Score: 1

    ...in space, no one can hear you scream?

  70. I'd rather find them first anyways. by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    I'd rather we become the ones who find other intelligent life and eat/enslave/probe/hybridize them, rather than the reverse.

  71. Radio Is Just a Fad Anyway by Wingsy · · Score: 1

    In a cosmic nanosecond or two (couple hundred years or less), kids will be learning in history class how the ancients (us) used radio to communicate. We'll be moving on to gravity wave communications pretty soon, and radio will be history, forever. That's why we're not hearing anything. No one in the cosmos is using radio any more.

    --
    If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
  72. Re:What's a few orders of magitude out of trillion by mbone · · Score: 1

    I don't think you understand how dB work.

    Here is an example - we communicate easily with spacecraft at a distance of 1 Astronomical Unit (AU). The nearest stars are a little less than 300,000 AU away, and so the signal from the same DSN transmitter would be about 10^-11 as weak there as it is a 1 AU. That amounts to 110 dB.

    Even at the Andromeda galaxy, this same signal would "only" be down by 224 dB as compared to 1 AU.

    So, yes, 100 dB is a big deal. It is comparable to the difference between the planets and the nearest stars, or the nearest stars and other galaxies.

  73. Life sterilization would be self-protection by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    I agree that it's stupid to imagine aliens coming here to take our resources. However, it might still be perfectly rational for them to come and destroy us. If we survive long enough, we might start an era of galactic colonization, where we jump from star system to star system, grinding up whatever material we find into gigantic orbiting space stations.

    Any radio-trasmitting civilization has the potential to become a galactic colonizer. So suppose that you belong to a society who also intends to colonize the galaxy and is perhaps a little bit more advanced. Then you notice a potential rival 100 light years away, who just entered their broadcast TV era. You realize that in the far future there might well be a great, catastrophic confrontation, as your wave of colonization bumps into theirs. But there is a cheap way to prevent this calamity: You send a giant sterilization machine or some such thing. Maybe it would drop a small black hole into the sun's gravity well, or maybe it would be a factory to assemble a robotic army from the material in the asteroid belt. In any case, if they could wipe us out before we settle other solar systems, they would save themselves a lot of future grief.

    If they're nice, they'll want to study us a bit before they kill us, and they might even keep several thousand of us in some kind of a zoo. However, that would add significantly to the expense of the extermination. At its cheapest, they could just calculate how long we will remain stuck in the solar system - suppose that in our case it will be another thousand years - and then send their mechanical destructive commando to us at a languid 10% the speed of light. That would be the smart thing to do... so expect it to arrive in about 900 years.

  74. Better to listen rather than be heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would prefer that we get the choice on who/what to pursue contact with.

  75. Alien Vs Predator like too watch MTV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Alf really care to watch old Episodes of Alf?
    I'm sure the only broadcast signal we could send that would even make sense to aliens would be footage of Lady Gaga

  76. It's like the saying goes by SaidinUnleashed · · Score: 1

    In space, no one can hear your stream!

    --
    Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
  77. Maybe a good thing?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know because we don't need no stinking Reapers spying on us! Not to mention the Geth!

  78. Predator by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    The Predators come to Earth to hunt humans. Just like rich Westerners go to Africa to hunt game. They don't really need it but enjoy it.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  79. I for one, welcome our new peaceful Overlords by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

    Considering how the meeting between two civilizations, one more advanced than the other, has generally gone badly for the majority of human history.

    I for one, am confident the space alien's relief agency will take a junket to Earth on a fact-finding mission and decide we Earthlings are living in poverty, our old are dying needlessly and we have wars with each other.

    The 1st wave of emergency relief, will arrive in the form of advanced medicines, large quantities of food and clean water, thus destroying the local market for our bio-tech firms, farmers, grocery chains, food manufactures and clean-water engineers. Student will lose incentive to study things like thermodynamics and would rather jack into the Alien mp7 porno players.

    The 2nd wave of relief will be to beam power, point to point to each building. thus wiping out the local market for power generation and transmission. (No more nasty CO2! Look at how much help you're being provided!)

    The 3rd wave of relief will arrive in the form of galactic peace-keeping security forces with funny, bright-purple helmets of a highly reflective surface ideal for protecting their heads from advanced beam weapons, which, over a pint of Romulan Ale, the aliens will privately share with us makes it feel like they wearing targets for protection. They'll ask us "why don't your mal-contents use proper beam weapons instead of the lead-throwing tubes? Our reflective helmets were designed for beam defence and your kind just ruins these advanced systems."

    A 4th wave of relief will come in the form of briefcase carrying, champaign-sipping representatives of the Galactic Bank. They'll tisk-tisk at how dependent we've become on foreign galactic aid, roll their eyes and moan "When will these poor earthlings ever become self-sustaining?"

    Earthlings will want to buy the advanced alien mp7 porno players and gizmos upgrades, but will have only paper-backed currency and not the gold-pressed latinum the rest of the civilized universe uses.

    As a solution, the Ferengi delegation to the Galactic Poverty Relief Bank will lobby to offer our politicians access to EZ credit...secured by the planet.

    Perhaps, if we just held the Planetary Deed...we could generously increase your government's credit line.

    Sure, it may sound scary, but it will be okay, because our confident-sounding politicians will promise us "change."

    They'll tell us that "they have a plan" and will work tirelessly to "restructure the global economy to be competitive in the galactic economy" and will borrow the money to get it done quickly. There is no time for debate. They'll publicly promise that the borrowed gold-pressed latinum will absolutely be spent wisely. Unlike every other time we've promised that...this time, we really-really mean it!

    They'll promise "complete transparency" when making legislative sausage. They'll promise the economy won't be re-structured behind closed door sessions with the Ferengi lobby. All elected officials thinking of funding their next campaign, they just loath lobbyistsand will work tirelessly with them to reduce their influence. Also, if you still like your paper-backed earth currency...in a way, it could be said that you'll be allowed to keep it. After all, the leaders say they can always borrow more gold-pressed latinum to print more paper currency. They'll just quietly hold more frequent bond auctions to raise the cash needed to meet the required down payment to borrow the gold-pressed latinum to spend on the influential and growing slashdot group known as "I for one, welcome our new peaceful and generous Overlords."

    I'm not cranky...I'm just drawn out that way.

  80. Re:What's a few orders of magitude out of trillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freespace loss is basically an application of the Inverse Square Law, which is why dB loss is still (literally) astronomical despite dB being a log scale. For reference, free space path loss from Earth to Geo orbit is about 207dB.

  81. For the record, alien invasion is highly unlikely by Sqityl · · Score: 1

    There has been a surprising number of comments in this discussion about the threat of invasion by an alien species. Since I can't tell if these people are joking, I have to assume they're serious. So let the record show that it's highly unlikely that earth is going to be invaded by aliens. This is for two reasons:

    1) Interstellar travel is expensive, probably even for an advanced species.
    2) We have nothing they want.

    I think it's safe to assume that point (1) is correct. We know very little about how interstellar travel will be conducted, but we do know that the energy cost of moving things between stars is extremely high.

    As for point (2), Earth is nothing special. If aliens want to take our minerals, they can acquire anything they can find on Earth in much higher quantities at a much lower cost from asteroids. They will have no logical reason to enslave us either. Any civilisation with interstellar capability is not going to have a huge demand for manual labour. It's also not likely that they will come here to colonise Earth, because we can't assume they will be anything like human. They may look like hundred legged spiders the size of buses who will be crushed in our gravity, or maybe sulfur based sea slugs who won't be able to live in our atmosphere. This brings me to my next point:

    Aliens, in all likelihood, will be nothing like us. Meaningful communication* with them may be impossible. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, but it does mean that we shouldn't use examples from human history to argue against contact. Just because every time a technologically advanced civilisation has come into contact with a less advanced civilisation has resulted in disaster in the past doesn't mean that contact with aliens will.

    On the other hand, there are 'illogical' reasons why aliens might invade. One is religion. It's unlikely that any alien philosophy will be anything like religion as we know it, but they may have a code of conduct of a single philosophy that underpins their actions. This is the sort of thing that we can't predict, but considering the cost of interstellar travel, any civilisation that makes a habit of sending ships to other worlds for the sole purpose of killing aliens isn't going to last very long.

    But then again, aliens are alien. Try as we might, we may never be able to fully understand their motives. This is all speculation, we will never know for sure if I'm right until we actually meet some aliens, which is yet another good reason to look for them.

    --
    *by 'meaningful communication', what I mean is an exchange of philosophies or ideas. More fundamental things like exchanging knowledge of chemistry may be more possible. (yet still difficult)

  82. Re:For the record, alien invasion is highly unlike by tftp · · Score: 1

    I think it's safe to assume that point (1) is correct. We know very little about how interstellar travel will be conducted, but we do know that the energy cost of moving things between stars is extremely high.

    The energy cost of a round trip is zero, unless your spaceship has friction against ether, or something. Besides, even if you use more wasteful ships, an advanced civilization is supposed to be able to afford their use if they make them in the first place.

    As for point (2), Earth is nothing special.

    You offer many guesses, but miss the one that several posters already mentioned. The aliens may want to simply destroy us as future competitors. They indeed don't need us or our planet or anything in between. They might just want us gone, like you want mice gone from your home. Just a guess, of course, but it has its place among others. And don't forget the hyperspace bypass theory too.

    considering the cost of interstellar travel, any civilisation that makes a habit of sending ships to other worlds for the sole purpose of killing aliens isn't going to last very long.

    You may be right, and when Earth starts shaking and falling apart under their destructor beams we should be sure that those aliens won't outlive us by much - a few million years, top.

  83. Loud Planet by Bill_s16 · · Score: 1

    The assumption here is that we'd want to be heard. Can we assume the ETs would as well? And it seems based on a further assumption that any unEarthly culture will be of uniform benign disposition. Could they say the same about us? What is the point of such an assertion in any case? Are we expected to intentionally stunt improvment and energy efficiency of communications just so's we'll be easier to find? Look at the Drake equasion. Fascinating to think about it but purely assumption based, every segment of it. Plug in whatever you want, depending on your own predisposition. Better, for now, to keep a low galactic profile.

    --
    Kite: A Novel in Earth Orbit Humorous Hard Sci-fi with Heart http://www.infinitybound.com FB: BillShears16 FB page: kite
  84. Wrong Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need to be worrying is whether the alien civilizations we want to make contact with are emitting clear signals to us. Because from my line of reasoning, any alien species that are going to respond to us will already be emitting signals of their own before they receive our signal, and their probe signal will obviously reach Earth earlier than their reply. So, we ought to factor this into our ET search as well.

  85. I have a theory... by cavebison · · Score: 1

    Apart from the one about dinosaurs.

    Call this the Over 40's Relationship Theory of First Contact. In this theory, the term "advanced civilisation" refers to one which is over the self-important, self-destructive, self-unaware phase, having achieved relative peace, equity and opportunity for all its citizens.

    Would such a civilisation bother responding to radio waves from a world such as ours? I imagine their response would be: sure, you can go all night, but the conversation sucks. No, I imagine they'd bookmark us for later, and keep on looking.

    For one thing is certain - if there's more than one intelligent species out there, there will be many more. So what's so special about us, in this point in our history, if any species out there is advanced enough to directly contact us?