Slashdot Mirror


US Air Force Pays SETI To Check Kepler-22b For Alien Life

New submitter iComp writes with this quote from El Reg: "The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has announced that it is back in business checking out the new [potentially] habitable exoplanets recently discovered by NASA's Kepler space telescope to see if they might be home to alien civilizations. The cash needed to restart SETI's efforts has come in part from the U.S. Air Force Space Command, who are interested in using the organization's detection instruments for 'space situational awareness'."

301 comments

  1. Space Intruder Detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maintaining scan for UFO's.

    "Intruder...alert...U...F...O..."

    1. Re:Space Intruder Detector by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Plus the aliens could be funding an Al Qaeda base there or have Space Oi- Ahem, I mean Weapons of Mass Interstellar Destruction. Can't let those space-terrorists go undetected!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Space Intruder Detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Intruder...alert...U...F...O..."

      WE ARE COMING

      Eat the pudding now!

    3. Re:Space Intruder Detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Give it a rest. It wasn't funny in the beginning and it isn't funny now.

    4. Re:Space Intruder Detector by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      Department of Homeworld defense. I want the T-Shirt.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    5. Re:Space Intruder Detector by rickshaf · · Score: 1

      OK, putting all the snarky, sophomoric thoughts aside, the USAF *should* be doing this sort of thing. It's the ultimate in military intelligence, finding out who's out there, how far away "they" are, and making an estimate of what nasty things they might be capable of doing to our species. (Oh, and I worked doing operations planning on the old NASA SETI Program in the 1980s, and I came at SETI from two points of view: One was for the pure science of finding out more about our Universe, but the other from the point of view of military intelligence, on the periphery of which I worked a decade earlier.)

  2. Does this mean... by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean I'll finally have a use for my Y2k bunker? If so, I should get busy building it.

    1. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's ok, you still have the best part of 89 years to build it.

    2. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your clock says December 7, 1911 too? Mine didn't handle the century flip either. The great thing about the Y2K bug is that once you have it, it'll keep coming back every hundred years.

    3. Re:Does this mean... by RagingFuryBlack · · Score: 1

      I'd stay out of Hawaii in about 30 years if I were you...

      --
      Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
    4. Re:Does this mean... by zlives · · Score: 1

      you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    5. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just finished mine

    6. Re:Does this mean... by Prune · · Score: 1

      LOL dude, you made me spit out my cereal laughing

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  3. USAF looking for new targets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before they're finished blowing up people and things in Afghanistan etc?

    1. Re:USAF looking for new targets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheney, September 12, 2001: "There are no good targets in Afghanistan."

      But we went there anyway. So, the USAF have been bombing even the bad targets in Afghanistan -- and, now they've plumb run out of stuff to bomb. Got to plan ahead, you know! Aliens ho!

  4. Jolly Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A marriage made in Heaven, and with National Security Tie-Ins and BIG Defense Corporate Sponsors and a VERY willing Congress.

    Cheers All.

  5. nice...sub orbital hypersonic missile tracker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the USAF wants to track sub orbital cruise missiles like DARPA is developing using the SETI ATA to look at close earth objects with high accuracy during the day when their optical tracking systems are offline. SETI wants to find alien civilizations at night. should work nicely.

    1. Re:nice...sub orbital hypersonic missile tracker. by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Funny

      "the USAF wants to track sub orbital cruise missiles..."

      I'd say that the discovery of sub-orbital missiles on Kepler-22b would be a pretty damn good indication of alien life. Intelligent? Not so much.

    2. Re:nice...sub orbital hypersonic missile tracker. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As it would take 600 years at the speed of light to reach us, we should have plenty of time to dodge any missile they fire at us. Er...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. Military the first one, huh? by TheDarkener · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there is intelligent enough life on Kepler-22b to see that our U.S. military, who can't seem to figure peace out on our OWN planet, is the first to probe theirs...they could see it as a potentially hostile first impression. Just sayin'.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the military having foresight, produence, and due diligence. Their main job is to defend us, and one of the major part of that is accessing new threats wherever they are.

      If we were to find life on this planet, would you rather us to in completely blind about them?

    2. Re:Military the first one, huh? by ZankerH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The military's job is fighting wars. Securing peace is the people's and governments' job.

    3. Re:Military the first one, huh? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

      . . . our U.S. military, who can't seem to figure peace out on our OWN planet . . .

      Peace is not the job of the military. Their job is to fight wars. Peace is the job of politicians and diplomats.

      "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") -- Carl von Clasewitz

      However, when we meet aliens, the politicians and diplomats will base their decisions on intelligence gathered by the military folks. Like, "What are the aliens' true intentions?" Are they secretly lizards who chow down on rats, or are they just passing through the space neighborhood and stopped for a pee-break at the Earth?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Even though I don't want go to war with aliens (and it currently seems illogical to do so) I have no problem with funding dual-purpose research just in case.

    5. Re:Military the first one, huh? by dokc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The military's job is fighting wars. Securing peace is the people's and governments' job.

      And the military is the only who does it's job.

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    6. Re:Military the first one, huh? by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

      The planet is 600 light years away, I think they would have to be very keen to travel that far to take over Earth. And what if the planet is just another gas giant?

      --
      liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
    7. Re:Military the first one, huh? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well as luck would have it monitoring *one* planet is very reasonable and not overly resource intensive.

      SETI's problem was always that they tried to monitor a *lot* of planet/star/whateverthefucks

    8. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me either. I mean, assuming they even exist, they are light years away at best and so pose no threat to us, but why not be ready for war with them?

      Of course, if they do have FTL, then their science will be incredibly advanced, so we'd most likely be fucked if they decided to come here and pick a fight...

      But you know, it wouldn't hurt to be ready.

    9. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      That's true of all Earth military forces, but compare U.S. forces to other Earth forces and think of who the aliens might better identify with.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    10. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mod up. There are lazy military personnel, but they are disproportionately smaller in number than the number of lazy civilians.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    11. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekprime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you have any idea how far away these "possible threats" actually are?

      Really, it's a serious question.

    12. Re:Military the first one, huh? by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... the chinese?
      Is the answer supposed to be obvious?

    13. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's more likely is that the Americans will poke at them until they get annoyed, then start a fight. Then we'll have to send British and Swedish forces in to sort out the resulting mess when the Yanks can't handle it.

    14. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it."
      - Jack Handey

    15. Re:Military the first one, huh? by cryptoluddite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The possible threat is from mass panic and/or social unrest. Take somebody's whole lifetime of religious belief and pull the carpet out from under it and they'll react irrationally. Do that to the majority of people on the planet and you potentially have big problems.

      I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet, let alone how people in some place like the Middle East would react. You know for a certainty people would at least try to blow up the radio telescopes and cover up the knowledge. What else? Who knows, but the government having some time to plan and prepare before word got out would be valuable preparation.

    16. Re:Military the first one, huh? by jouassou · · Score: 1

      If the aliens are so much more advanced than us that they are capable of FTL, then we can't possibly be of any value to them. Any resources or minerals found on Earth can be found on planets or asteroids not contaminated with life forms. Any service we can do as slaves, can likely be performed better by their own machines. We're probably way too different to conduct their medical research on. Using us as a food source would simply be silly. I cannot see any possible motive for harming or destroying us on purpose.

      However, if the aliens are at approximately our technological level, we might be perceived as either a threat or possible slaves. Such "primitive" aliens are likely incapable of FTL, so we should see them coming in good time.

    17. Re:Military the first one, huh? by inasity_rules · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is an interesting read.

      I find it sad that writers fear to explore religion in speculative fiction. The reaction (specifically of the majority of Christians -i.e. catholics) may not be what you think it is.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    18. Re:Military the first one, huh? by qbast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't find any *human* motives for harming us. Alien lifeforms may have completely alien way of thinking and incomprehensible motivations. Even their definition of 'harm' may be different than ours.

    19. Re:Military the first one, huh? by qbast · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you define military's job as *fighting* wars rather than winning them then yes, they are working great.

    20. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, but if we find that the planet has some life but is also strangely radioactive, we might want to reconsider our emphasis on military approaches to every issue. The biggest threat to humanity is right here at home. The same is probably true for any alien intelligent enough to figure out how to put together a critical mass of uranium or plutonium.

    21. Re:Military the first one, huh? by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

      Seti just listens and doesn't really poke things. I don't think we have the ability to actively poke something 600 light years away. How can anything really know we're watching if we're only using passive means to observe it? The time to start worrying maybe is when our radio and TV signals finally reach that planet.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    22. Re:Military the first one, huh? by whovian · · Score: 2

      It's the military having foresight, produence, and due diligence. Their main job is to defend us, and one of the major part of that is accessing new threats wherever they are.

      If we were to find life on this planet, would you rather us to in completely blind about them?

      I think you meant assessing, but the way things seem to work in the US, you would have been correct either way.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    23. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you have any idea how far away these "possible threats" actually are?"

      Farther than Afghanistan?

    24. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, although I totally agree with the sentiment of your post, (I have been saying for years, develop better weapons before trying to find aliens) that was painful to read, as in my head almost asploded. Spell check is your friend, my friend. "Produence"? I assume you mean prudence. "Accessing new threats"? Like accessing data on a corrupted hard drive? Or maybe you mean assessing. "Would you rather us to in completely blind about them"? What? Is that even engrish? Not really sure what you were goin for there. Sorry, cant ftfy. Sorry to be a spelling nazi, but, wow. Speaking about due diligence...

    25. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still a long way to go before we call it even for ending the two world wars.

    26. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Produence, eh? I'm sure whatever that is will be useful to them...

    27. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn that's a hilarious post. The British provide the comic relief while the Swedes glumly watch.
      Meanwhile, the Americans realize that once again, they've been screwed by the global elite and the useless UN.

    28. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      Yes just remember when your country's currency implodes and you are relegated to less than 3rd world status because your country is not designed to survive without the automobile, that spending money on alien research was a top priority.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    29. Re:Military the first one, huh? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'd want the planet itself?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    30. Re:Military the first one, huh? by syousef · · Score: 2

      I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet,

      They would be divided between falling over each other reinterpretting their holy book to show that it predicted first contact, and insisting that first contact is a sign of the end of days and the aliens are devils in disguise.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    31. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok everyone on Earth, listen up, if any aliens ask if we've got FTL, the anwser is Yes.

    32. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we'll have to send British and Swedish forces in to sort out the resulting mess when the Yanks can't handle it.

      To do what?

    33. Re:Military the first one, huh? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Also you DIDN'T SEE any space cash!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    34. Re:Military the first one, huh? by stevencbrown · · Score: 1

      we have the potential some day (even if it's millenia away and they are hugely advanced now) to be a threat to them. Why not just wipe us out now, while we can't defend ourselves?

    35. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've got news for you; if the aliens have the technology to come here, and they wanted to kill us off, there is nothing that we could do. All of the movies you see are a total joke; we would be the proverbial fish in a barrel to them. Actually, we wouldn't; it's way harder to kill fish in a barrel than it would be for them to wipe us out instantly. Just imagine the United States military going to war with a tribe of hunter gatherers, and the hunter gatherers have nowhere to hide.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    36. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      It's the military having foresight, produence, and due diligence. Their main job is to defend us, and one of the major part of that is accessing new threats wherever they are.

      If we were to find life on this planet, would you rather us to in completely blind about them?

      Are you kidding me? The military's main job is to defend us? Have you been living under a rock? The military's main job is to support the political aims of the people in power. If the people in power were looking to defend us, those two goals would be aligned and there would be no conflict. Unfortunately, this is not even remotely the case. I am not even going to give you examples because honestly, at this point, if you need me to provide examples of how the people in power aren't looking out for us then there is nothing I can say to sway you from your naive optimism.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    37. Re:Military the first one, huh? by martas · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but it can be stated more generally. GP said that the military's role is "accessing new threats", but a large part of that is acquiring intelligence/knowledge of potential strategic importance, preferably before anyone else does. Even though hundreds of light years away, the actual discovery of technologically advanced extra-solar life would most definitely be of very high strategic importance, even if only just for the reason you gave.

    38. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Exactly!

      Whereas any civilized species would need to have curiosity as a trait (I can't see how they would become advanced to civilization if they didn't) - they needn't necessarily have the same desire to preserve life as we do. (protected areas, national parks, pets, zoos).

      If they see us as someone who could be a threat to them in the future- the logical thing to do would be to wipe us out.

      We can't guarantee aliens will be compassionate.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    39. Re:Military the first one, huh? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, the U.S. Military was never keen on going into Iraq. That was the Bush Administration. In Afghanistan, they used a very small footprint initially. Then the Bush Administration decided to drag the locals out of the 9th century into the 21st.

      You are blaming the wrong people.

    40. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      You can't even leave out the possibility that they would be pointlessly malevolent; they could just find it amusing to fly around the galaxy and wipe out life as they find it. I mean, come on, they're fscking aliens. Do we really think that we can possibly predict what alien logic would look like?

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    41. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's right. The Cold War, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, the War on Terror, and almost a century of other miscellaneous bullshit still hasn't repaid you for those couple of times you protected your shipping lanes from the Germans.

    42. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swedish force sorting out some military conflict? Better bring some Finns along just in case!

    43. Re:Military the first one, huh? by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1

      good thing the US military didnt contract facebook then :P

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    44. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did qualify his statements with the word fundamentalists, which already implies the minority. But even then I can only imagine a small minority within the Christian fundamentalists would react violently. Most would, as a poster below says, reinterpret the Bible to include the aliens, and pretend they have an eternal soul that needs to be saved. I do wonder how they'll spin the whole "man being created in god's image" thing, though. Unless the aliens resemble us, that is. That would be freaky.

    45. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Yev000 · · Score: 2

      Far enough to be able to evolve from monkeys by the time the light gets here?

    46. Re:Military the first one, huh? by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Modern Christians non fundamentalist seem to take the view that the "image" we're created in reflects the spiritual, moral and logical nature of God rather than a physical image. So, it isn't theologically impossible for an alien to be thought of as "in the image of God" even if it's eyes are on stalks and its green.

      If you read the link, you'll realize that the catholic church has an official position on aliens and what to do if contact is made. Most fundamentalists are too self centered to have even though about beyond a knee-jerk "its a demon!" reaction, so in a sense, he is sadly correct. I sit corrected by AC. How embarrassing.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    47. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      Due diligence would be remembering that many people from other countries post on this board. You know people where English was not a first language. But it is far easier to just insult people.

    48. Re:Military the first one, huh? by inasity_rules · · Score: 2

      I find other people's views interesting and speculative fiction on how they react to differing situations is interesting to me. This for example, is an interesting question, how would christian fundamentalists react? How would muslims?

      This is yet another interesting scenario. To me, at least. You may have no interest in how people who disagree with you think and react, but that however is your loss. Science fiction is very good at exploring such ideas. Perhaps you're not a fan of science fiction?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    49. Re:Military the first one, huh? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I find it sad that writers fear to explore religion in speculative fiction."

      They don't. They still write Midrash (a form of storytelling that explores ethics and values in biblical texts.)
        excerpt below. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash)
      Some even say that the bible is a collection of such fictional stories.

      "Contemporary Midrash

      A wealth of literature and artwork has been created in the 20th and 21st centuries by people aspiring to create "Contemporary Midrash". Forms include poetry, prose, Bibliodrama (the acting out of Bible stories), murals, masks, and music, among others. The Institute for Contemporary Midrash was formed to facilitate these reinterpretations of sacred texts. The institute hosted several week-long intensives between 1995 and 2004, and published eight issues of Living Text: The Journal of Contemporary Midrash from 1997 to 2000."

    50. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to blow shit up than to put it back together again.

    51. Re:Military the first one, huh? by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but there are oh so many assumptions that make SETI such a poor idea in the first place. How powerful of a transmitter would be required for SETI to pick up a signal? How long would it take for the signal to reach us? What is to say that another advanced civilization would use something even remotely resembling radio to communicate over distance instead of something like quantum entanglement? Even if there is other life out there, the chances of SETI actually finding it or even being capable of detecting it are so insignificant as to make burning your money a substantially better investment.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    52. Re:Military the first one, huh? by tmosley · · Score: 2

      To make jib comments and cook.

      Bork bork bork.

    53. Re:Military the first one, huh? by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      There are more explorations in christianity then elsewhere, I have not seen so much for other religions...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    54. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preserve woooot? =D

      Since a couple of centuries we've been busy triggering a mass extinction event because:
      - we need *all* the land and resources to improve indefinitely our ability to produce and exchange any kind of ephemeral gadgetry
      - we want to eat an endless supply of everything that tastes remotely good
      - we like to spend most of our lives in the most artificial, secluded from nature environments we can conceive

      What you cite as examples of our desire to preserve life are indeed a very marginal reaction to the realization that we are naturally unwilling to do so (protected areas, national parks) and the expression of the desire of interacting with other lifeforms in the most controlled and artificial way for our cultural amusement (pets, zoos).

      If invading aliens were "compassionate" like us:
      - they'd transform the whole earth in a gigantic toxic factory to produce millions of tons of some superfluous goods for which there's a high demand on the other side of the galaxy
      - genetically select a fatty human variety to breed indoors in millions to produce tasty snacks to be sold on interstellar highways
      - genetically select another docile and gentle variety to be enjoyed as amusing lovely pets
      - put some kind of geodesic dome on a couple dozens notable human cities and natural environments and visit them in their spare time to take a break from their alien arcologies and remind them how cool is that picturesque native earth stuff. ;-)

    55. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahaha... what a self-absorbed asshole this one is! Humans are 'compassionate' and 'protect life' he says! HA!! What a clown!

    56. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Frangible · · Score: 1

      The job of the USAF Space Command isn't "fighting wars". It's as they say, "To provide an integrated constellation of space and cyberspace capabilities at the speed of need." In other words, they're the satellite guys.

      You might better know them as the sole voice in the US government that stood up to Lightsquared and the FCC's idiot plan that will destroy GPS reception in the US so some politician's buddies can make a quick buck, by massively overloading power output on adjacent frequencies to GPS that bleed into the GPS signal like a compass inside a MRI machine. Perhaps they should have bombed the hell out of someone over that, but so far they've just used words.

    57. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Just no. Why do people keep spouting this crap?
      We could, right now, get up in space, build a huge ass colony and set it on course to whatever planet we wish.
      That's with shields that can protect us against radiation. (The earth is incredibly huge compared to some tiny colony, we can create fields countless times larger than the earth can)

      The ONLY thing that is stopping us is that it isn't profitable. That. is. it.
      We are a profit-driven society. Unless something gives us profit in some sort of reasonable time-frame, nobody gives a damn besides private companies.
      And the good part is the private space industry has recently gone to great lengths in space launching, and have managed to cut costs even more so than most big space agencies have.

      To send tonnes and tonnes of dirt in to space, rock, plant matter, animals, people, metals, very expensive power-generating fuels (nuclear) and launch it off at 1/10th speed of light by solar sail is a HUGE sink of money just going straight to the ocean, never to be seen again for generations. (if at all)
      Not to mention making it sealed enough so that basically no energy is lost to space (metamaterials is our best bet with that), even more money.

      You do not need to have some sort of lightspeed engine or warp capabilities or even fusion capabilities, we can do this right now with what we have, and in a little bit, even more efficiently once metamaterials are more understood.

      It should be our number one priority to send as many lifeforms to other planets that are even remotely capable of life to seed those planets with life if there isn't any.
      Robotic mining could be done on the new planets that they orbit over to expand the colonies.
      When life finally has a hold on this new planet, construction could begin on the planet, even if it means building a huge city floating on platforms because the gravity is too strong at surface.
      With time, genetic engineering could be performed on the species to optimize offspring to this extreme gravity, or just lower the platform an inch every year and let evolution deal with it. (easily done with mechanisms that hold the platform up)
      This is completely possible now. Maybe not so much the genetic engineering, but the robotic mining, seeding the planet with life and eventual planet colony.

      Even just sending seeding ships to other planets with some super AI on board that will bring up future humans on other planets.
      Initially teach them how to survive and extend the population, make shelter and so on, then teach them all of our history, our arts, literature, sciences and more.
      Actually, maybe ignore the history part, well, most of it, human history is just filled with corruption and awfulness. Just tell them the good stuff, don't want them to feel bad and end up suicidal like the human race is. Make it out like cave-paintings designed for children. Yes.

      But it is all a waste of money. Nobody cares about space. Nobody cares about survival of the species. Everyone just cares about their own life. (exaggerating, but the majority certainly do)

    58. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept of other worlds and other universes with other intelligent life is nothing new to Hinduism and Buddhism, but a fact that was stated thousands of years back.

    59. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many humans that would get a kick out of it.
      Or Missionaries spreading religion through the sword.
      Or xenophobes that find the thought of alien life repugnant.

      One can only guess

    60. Re:Military the first one, huh? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Compared to a race like the Irkens from Invader Zim, yeah that's right.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    61. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was inevitable. Many of us already predicted that the new found ability to discover and vaguely classify exoplanets would allow use to target SETI improving the chance of finding intelligent alien life many fold. The USAF is helping SETI to do what they should already be doing.

      I absolutely agree, identifying new threats is certainly a prudent endeavour and there is nothing wrong with the USAF having a vested interest in that. Though I suspect discovering intelligent life close by would make their arguments more convincing when it comes down to sourcing funding for R&D. The USAF would much rather be the USSF. It's cooler. The USAF has to show interest because they may have no interest in initiating any hostilities themselves but they can never speak for the other party.

      Interstellar war isn't out of the question with the distances involved. For example, with current technology we could conceivably develop many high yield AI guided thermonuclear missiles and send them to their planet that could arrive in some tens of thousands of years and strike their planet. It would be extremely expensive but not impossible. If we could do that they could do the same or worse. We know we have no reason to do that but we have no idea what crazy culture other intelligent organisms may have. If their planet is failing it is also conceivable that they may send probes to our planet to deposit their version of life in an effort to spread life while not caring or realising that life is already here and that they may damage that by contamination. However, I don't think we need to worry about a District 9 like scenario. With the current understanding of life and the rules of the universe it is extremely unlikely that our planetary surface would meet their needs and it would probably be very difficult for complex life to survive for such a duration in space.

      It is far away, extremely unlikely to harbour intelligent life, and extremely unlikely that any intelligent life would pose a threat. But why take risks? Aside from that, as many below have pointed out, the real threats are domestic, rather than alien.

    62. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      You are correct in assuming that if they where that far ahead of us there would be no logical reason for them to wipe us out. Some friends and I have been debating this for a while now. With a help of some mental liberation for a bottle of wild turkey we came to the same conclusion.

      What we are left with is the illogical reasons. They might decide to wipe us out because of some religious reason they might have.

      Then again you never can tell with alien thinking. What seems illogical to us might be perfectly logical to them. Such as wiping us out because they simply feel like it. They could also to because they want to eliminate us as a possible threat in the future.

      They could also be so far ahead of us that they simply do not see us as life forms.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    63. Re:Military the first one, huh? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      No, you don't understand. They have the high ground, they could park in high orbit or the asteroid belt or Jupiter's Trojan points, and launch a couple hundred big heavy rocks at us. End of story, end of human civilization. There is nothing anyone on the planet could do deflect a significant number of incoming asteroids, let along asteroids that have been purposefully aimed and directed at the planet.

    64. Re:Military the first one, huh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I cannot see any possible motive for harming or destroying us on purpose.

      Have you ever killed an ant? If so, why?

      All of the reasons you listed above apply to you killing ants, in case it's not obvious.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    65. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If memory serves me right about 70 years ago it was a British PM who sat back and watched as some bratty German kid with a cheesy mustache threw temper tantrums all over Europe. December 7, 1941 rolls around and the US gets dragged into a European war because the pacifist douche bags that ran Europe wouldn't bust the little German kids ass. We have had 2 world wars within a century because European pacifist douche bags like you sit back and watch every time the next Hitler crops up while the US goes out and smacks them upside the head. All the while you complain that the US is being to aggressive. It seems funny that since the US became THE international peace keeper that there has been no other major world wars.

    66. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if the British are going to be doing the cooking, I think we are better off letting the aliens win this one...

    67. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "then we can't possibly be of any value to them. "

      how would you know what they value?

      Maybe they value land for expansion? If they do, and they have 'FTL' then we have already lost.

      " We're probably way too different to conduct their medical research on. "
      Unknown. That will be one of the fascinating things.

      If you see an new tribe in some deep rain forest, is your first thought to enslave them?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    68. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      pointlessly malevolent species don't survive very long.

      There are some specific evolutionary traits must be present for the species to survive.

      It's a very wide range, but not a complete unknown.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    69. Re:Military the first one, huh? by fifedrum · · Score: 2

      wouldn't it be awesome if the first aliens with which we make contact had hard, bright red exoskeletons, horns on their heads, red glowing eyes and preferred sulfurous drinks? By way of answering my own question, it would be awesome.

    70. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They want our land. Pretty damn simple. They key to evolutionary survival is expansion.

      Maybe you should try sober thinking.

      "ahead of us "
      there is no ahead, or behind.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    71. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ants aren't sentient beings.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    72. Re:Military the first one, huh? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, then the British and Swedish forces will eventually give up and go home when they realize it's a war that can't be won.

    73. Re:Military the first one, huh? by zigmeister · · Score: 2

      Did you watch Cowboys and Aliens? Stupid movie I know but that is another reason: rare elements like gold, platinum etc that are only made during supernovae (or according to wikipedia particle accelerators and nuclear reactions, but at a very high projected cost.) Of course they probably wouldn't just come to earth for the gold but more like sweep through a lot of solar systems and planets in a round trip.

      Also, I agree that if they have FTL and are out hunting for gold (or whatever else) they'd squash us like a bug. I'm told that there is potentially a lot of gold in the earth's core, making our destruction a done deal, if they had the appropriate tech for that also. Not trying to sound like a UFO nut here, honestly don't believe we'll ever contact the buggers even if they do exist. It's just to unlikely, but can make for some stupid fun movies.

      --
      Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
    74. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      we didn't evolve from monkeys. We share a similar ancestor.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    75. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      "The military's main job is to support the political aims of the people in power.
      there is no evidence of this in the US at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    76. Re:Military the first one, huh? by inerlogic · · Score: 1

      seti has actually used the dish in puerto rico to send signals INTO space..... we can send 'em a poke, but it'll take 600 years for them to receive the poke, and then 600 more for them to poke back....

    77. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Jappus · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have had 2 world wars within a century because European pacifist douche bags like you sit back and watch every time the next Hitler crops up while the US goes out and smacks them upside the head.

      Actually, World War 1 started because Europe was full of militaristic (and mostly aristocratic) douche bags who wouldn't even take the offer not to start the War, because they already had all the plans made up and their little toy soldiers moved down from the attic to play with them.

      Now, World War 2 was a direct consequence of the winning militaristic idiots deciding that peace means giving the other militaristic dimwits a huge reason to start another war. In that climate, being a pacifist only saved peace for roughly 20 years (even less if you count Spain). After that, the militaristic and obscenely patriotic/nationalist side decided it'd be jolly good to start playing with toy soldiers again.

      The only reason we didn't have a Third and Fourth World War was that the militaristic idiots in all participating countries didn't get another chance to fuck the post-war peace up again. It may have been the military that won the war, but it were the pacifists that ensured that peace would last more than another 20 years.

      And what was the end result? The United States led one bloody war after another, whereas Europe saw continuously progressing unification and over 60 years of mostly peace ... up until an US-American, patriotic fuckwad decided a full blown war in two countries with hundred of thousands of dead would be the best response to a small group of confused people killing some 3000 US-Americans.

      Yeah, the military is great, isn't it? And for good measure, a big hooray for the war-mongers of the future!

    78. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1
    79. Re:Military the first one, huh? by baKanale · · Score: 1

      Same thing with Mormonism, albeit with more recent origins. Of course, given that "Mormon leaders and theologians have taught that these inhabitants are similar or identical to humans", one might imagine they'd not react well to tentacles or eye stalks.

    80. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. What did "this" add to your reply other than making you look like an arrogant asshole?

    81. Re:Military the first one, huh? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Social insects have a type of sentience

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    82. Re:Military the first one, huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still a long way to go before we call it even for ending the two world wars.

      The US wasn't really responsible for ending WW1 and even if it had been, the resulting "peace" was not something that anyone would be proud of, leading inevitably to WW2 as it did. If I was American, I'd let the UK and France have WW1.

      As for WW2, the honours would have to be shared between the USSR and the US.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    83. Re:Military the first one, huh? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Do we really think that we can possibly predict what alien logic would look like?

      Yes. Logic is universally true. If they've advanced to the point where they've managed or mastered interstellar travel, then they must have access to rational thought and logic. The question isn't what their logic will look like, but what portion of their behavior is irrational and illogical.

    84. Re:Military the first one, huh? by JMonty42 · · Score: 1

      Kepler-22b is about 600 light years away from us. Meaning that any attempts at contacting this race would take at least 1200 years to accomplish since we can only transmit at the speed of light.

      Of course it is possible that if there is an intelligent form of life on Kepler-22b, they could have discovered our planet and have been trying to contact us for over 600 years. That would be interesting, and that is actually what SETI is set up for, it listens for signals that couldn't occur naturally and therefore would be from another life form.

    85. Re:Military the first one, huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If the aliens are so much more advanced than us that they are capable of FTL, then we can't possibly be of any value to them.

      Two words: food, sex.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    86. Re:Military the first one, huh? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, then the British and Swedish forces will eventually give up and go home when they realize it's a war that can't be won.

      Right, because Ireland and Scotland are clear indications of the Brits unwillingness to fight wars which last for hundreds of years.

      Anyone who truly believes that the little dustups in the middle-east/southeast asia "can't be won" is an idiot. Period, full stop. The only question is how badly you want to win, and what methods you're willing to use. The idea that a bunch of dirt-poor, barely-out-of-the-iron-age peasants could be a serious threat to a modern army is so ridiculous it could only be proposed by an intellectual.

    87. Re:Military the first one, huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Did you watch Cowboys and Aliens?

      That movie achieved the remarkable feat of having a trailer that positively ensured I would never watch the film.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    88. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most fundamentalists I know (and I live in the bible belt and know quite a few) seem to believe that "image of God" means spiritual, moral, and logical. It's seen as somewhat....limiting of God to imagine him physically looking like a person.

    89. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      Are you serious? I must assume that you are trolling because your argument can be refuted in one word -- Vietnam.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    90. Re:Military the first one, huh? by qbast · · Score: 1

      And? What makes you think that aliens will give a damn about your sentience?

    91. Re:Military the first one, huh? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Securing peace is the people's and governments' job.

      Sorry, boy, peace doesn't sell bullets.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    92. Re:Military the first one, huh? by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you define military's job as *fighting* wars rather than winning them then yes, they are working great.

      "Alright, I want you to get in the ring and kick that guys ass!"

      "Ok, coach"

      "But don't punch him"

      "Huh?"

      "And don't kick him"

      "Wha .. ?"

      "But you can swear at him as much as you like!"

      "Ok ..."

      "As long as he swears at your first."

      " ..... "

      "WHY AREN'T YOU WINNING YET???"

      Of course, calling them "wars" is a bit of a stretch anyway. More lives were lost on D Day than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

      Let me repeat that.

      More allied soldiers died in one day during one single battle than in the last 11 years of "war".

      Yah. Poor us. How can we ever win against such odds!

    93. Re:Military the first one, huh? by wiggles · · Score: 1

      The Americans tried to do the right thing. Blame the French for the disaster that was the Treaty of Versailles.

    94. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SETI's problem was always that they tried to monitor a *lot* of planet/star/whateverthefucks

      That's certainly a problem but I don't think it's the biggest problem.

      Imagine you got someone from the 1700's, say George Washington, brought him to the modern world, and assign him the task of intercepting all communications between two huts 5 miles apart. Give him no information that things like radio or cellphones exist.

      What would he do? Probably set a watch on each hut and stop anyone who leaves or enters. That's all he would think he needed to do. He would have no idea that the two huts are in constant, instantaneous contact the whole time via cellphone, email, and encrypted link and have been sending pictures of his sentries and their locations back and forth from the moment he set them.

      Poor George would have no idea what was going on.

      SETI is unfortunately in the same position. The biggest problem you have in interstellar travel is communication. Or rather, the speed of it and the lack thereof. It's unthinkable to me for useful interstellar travel to be feasible without both the spacecraft and communications being FTL.

      How do you do that? I don't know. Neither does SETI. They've set their sentries watching the huts in space waiting for a rider on a horse to come out, and they won't ever see one. Advanced, space-faring aliens communicate some other way. It's probably faster than light and we poor humans don't have a clue how to intercept it.

    95. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does this idea come from? I live in the Bible Belt. I've gone to some fairly fundamentalist churches. I have never once heard anyone religious go on about how alien life could never exist. I've even heard it mentioned to make a point in sermons on rare occasions.

      Conservative Christians (foolishly) have a problem with evolution because it doesn't jibe with their views on biblical creation. Conservative Christians sometimes have a problem with climate change because they are conservatives, and the economically conservative aspect of conservatism has problem with CO2 regulations, and that bleeds over. Its got nothing to do with religion, and in fact I know several religious conservative organizations which do support action on climate change. The argument over conception isn't about science at all. Everyone agrees on when fertilization occurs, when organs develop, when certain brain functions start, and when birth occurs. They differ on when to assign status as a person, and what balance of rights to assign to mother and fetus, but that's a philosophical and legal question more than a scientific one.

      The mere existence of alien life doesn't throw a wrench into any biblical interpretations the way that evolution does. There are no verses in the Bible saying "Earth contains all the life in the universe" or "Humans are the only intelligent organisms". Presumably conservatives wouldn't have any economic reason to deny the existence of alien intelligence. And finally, there probably _would_ be religious debate about whether or not aliens should be considered people, how they should be regarded legally, etc. Rather like the debate over the status of embryos, fetuses, unborn, etc. But that's all going to be pretty academic if they are just sitting on a planet 600 ly away and not actually members of our society.

    96. Re:Military the first one, huh? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      last I checked europe was broke, I dont call that prosperous france wants out of the euro along with a few other countries, and the brittish also gave us the info that said saddam had WMDs, so I blame them just as much as I blame bush for the iraq war

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    97. Re:Military the first one, huh? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      If the aliens are so much more advanced than us that they are capable of FTL, then we can't possibly be of any value to them.

      I hear we make great pets.

    98. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

      The military's job is fighting wars. Securing peace is the people's and governments' job.

      Part of the military's job is to be prepared for war. If they never had to actually fight one, that would be fine with me; I'd still cut them a paycheck.

    99. Re:Military the first one, huh? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Oh really? ONLY Americans??!! If anyone ever finds out there is alien on their own or the info gets leaked (and it will in a nanosecond), everyone and their mother will be probing for information. Granted, 600LY delay in communications is the deal breaker. But assuming they were a lot closer, nations will make every attempt to trade for exotic technologies.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    100. Re:Military the first one, huh? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's right. The Cold War, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, the War on Terror, and almost a century of other miscellaneous bullshit still hasn't repaid you for those couple of times you protected your shipping lanes from the Germans.

      The US won the Cold War. And the campaigns in Vietnam and Korean were successful, even though they were not military victories. (Protip: Find out why were fighting there, and then see what happened.)

      Like Korea and Vietnam, the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars. Wars have battle lines, and opposing forces fighting over territory so they can advance to the next spot until they take over or purge the whole damn country and kill every single enemy. Or take or hold a symbolic point (such as the capitol) and force a surrender of the other side.

      Afghanistan and Iraq are politically-motivated occupations. And I'm glad they're too costly to keep going indefinitely. Afghanistan was a war when it started, but everyone ran in a hole and hid so we didn't really have anyone to shoot at 99% of the time. GWB was a moron and sent in as many camera crews as troops, so we couldn't just blow everyone up, we had to wait until our troops were attacked before we could act on anything. After about a year we had killed off some actual terrorists, and orders were essentially "stand and wait". And then we got Bin Laden out of the blue one day.

      (Begin conspiracy discussion here.)

    101. Re:Military the first one, huh? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Or they offered help to save humanity. We accepted the offer. In return, the wipe out 99% of the population only leaving what they consider desirable traits to repopulate the Earth. Their thinking in terms of millions of years, not hours, days, or weeks. So from that vantage point, they could very well have delivered a gift to our species and not the individual. Be careful what you ask for and offers you accept.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    102. Re:Military the first one, huh? by lgw · · Score: 1

      If we had some warning they were coming, and took the threat seriously, the total industrial base of the world is quite impressive. Given some time and motivation, every single asteroid inside Jupiter they approached to use as ammo would be a deathtrap. The TW laser on the moon would vaporize anything with predictable motion before it stood a chance.

      Of course, we wouldn't take the threat seriously, and they'd win, that's human nature, But we certainly have the technology and the industrial base to be one Hell of a hard target if we wanted to.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    103. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think "winning" means killing most everyone in the country you're the only idiot here. The people who say the war "can't be won" are people that are speaking about prompting an actual change in a country. The problem isn't like it was in Europe, we were have to go liberate a few countries from some obvious oppressor. There's no "winning" because you don't change people's minds for the positive by killing their neighbors.

    104. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Agripa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just imagine the United States military going to war with a tribe of hunter gatherers, and the hunter gatherers have nowhere to hide.

      That stupid phalanx killed three of my tanks so I am not so sure about this.

    105. Re:Military the first one, huh? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Worse. They might force our star to go super nova. Why take out a species when you can take out an entire solar system. Big boom. Big badda boom!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    106. Re:Military the first one, huh? by bckrispi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, World War 1 started because Europe was full of militaristic (and mostly aristocratic) douche bags who wouldn't even take the offer not to start the War, because they already had all the plans made up and their little toy soldiers moved down from the attic to play with them.

      Here's an interesting bit of trivia: What did King George the IV of England, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, and Tsarina Alexandra (wife of Tsar Nicholas) have in common? Answer: a grandmother. These were all the spoiled grandchildren of Queen Victoria, and all first cousins. Austria is represented in this inbred family tree as well. Victoria's husband, Albert was a Hapsburg. One single family represented the initial primary belligerents in a conflict that led to the massacre of sixteen and a half million people.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    107. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea how far away these "possible threats" actually are?

      Really, it's a serious question.

      If they happen to be an advanced civilization there is a possibility that they have some method of travel that could bring them here in short order. Or maybe they are already on the way and almost here. Or maybe they are already here and would make their presence known if we discover their world(s).

      I wouldn't depend on distance as protection.

    108. Re:Military the first one, huh? by jack+the+ex-cynic · · Score: 1

      I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet

      Actually, from a biblical perspective, Earth is essentially as opposite from a "Chosen Planet" as you can get. As the story goes, we crucified the last visiting alien 2,000 years ago.

      --
      jack the ex-cynic
    109. Re:Military the first one, huh? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The mere existence of alien life doesn't throw a wrench into any biblical interpretations the way that evolution does

      Actually, for fundamentalist Christians it does... at least if the alien life is intelligent, and shows signs of self-awareness and the ability to reason. The only reason it would not is if the Christian had not ever analyzed all of the implications of their beliefs (which does certainly happen, but not always).

      Consider that if God created man and woman in his own image, giving them a soul, and placed them in charge of all creation. If intelligent life were created elsewhere, then that would mean that mankind was not actually given full charge over creation, which is the whole impetus for God to have created man in the first place, but was intended to share the responsibility with others.

      Things get really dicey in that regard when you look at issues related to the fall of man.

      The fall of man from God's grace would have given God sufficient cause to simply destroy mankind outright, as he was alleged to very nearly have done in Noah's time, if there were other beings who had not ever fallen. The only reasonable justification for allowing mankind to continue is if we were all that there was.

      Jesus was a descendant of the first man and woman, and could therefore pay a penalty on mankind's behalf for their transgression. Owing to who he was and that he was born a man, he would not have been able to die for other races as well... the death he experienced was for mankind's benefit alone. If he were to have to die multiple times on multiple worlds, then the notion of his death being an absolute atonement does not carry the same weight or meaning.

      There are other interpretations, some a bit far-fetched, but some a bit more mainstream, such as what I've mentioned, that would ultimately have issues with the existence of intelligent alien life, but there's one of them.

      If intelligent life were discovered, it would shake up certain popular world religions in a way unlike any event recorded in human history.

    110. Re:Military the first one, huh? by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      Sorry, IMHO that's a cop-out. The U.S. military is a branch of the U.S. government. That's like saying the guy who kicked your ass isn't at fault for kicking your ass, because some other guy told him to. Lame scapegoat tactic, shallow as all hell.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    111. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Prune · · Score: 1

      And what about the Canadians?

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    112. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That planet is 600 light years away. By the time these hypothetical aliens detect our technology and send an offensive response, we may have technology incomprehensible to us now and exist across the solar system in clades of life that vary across the spectrum between biology and machine. And if the singularitarians are right, who can say whether our exponential technology curve won't be faster than our enemy's?

    113. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't find any *human* motives for harming us.

      Sure you can. Consider the motives and behavior-sets seen in sociopaths, who are still homo sapiens.

    114. Re:Military the first one, huh? by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 2

      > [if] they wanted to kill us off, there is nothing that we could do.

      That's why this scenario is not the one we should be worried about. Here's a greater danger -- one plausible enough, that it might cause Earth-bound governments to invest significant resources in detecting extraterrestrial intelligence:

      Imagine that the intelligence is intentionally (or even: inadvertently) broadcasting information that can be used by one faction of Earthlings against another. Perhaps they are broadcasting what is to them, basic science information. (but to humans: the next, best, new weapon!) Perhaps they are broadcasting their own philosophy and ideology. (again: that could be used as an info- weapon, here.) Perhaps they have no desire to contact others -- but, inadvertently, there are signatures in their atmosphere(s) that indicate a variety of advanced technologies they're using. (...which would indicate fertile directions for future weapons research, here.)

      Just *knowledge* of their existence -- eg: being the first to provably detect such an intelligence -- could give one ideological faction on this planet more power than another.

    115. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Peter Watts did an engaging job of describing how alien an alien can be in his books, notably Blindsight and The Island. Most of his books are available for free online from that page.

    116. Re:Military the first one, huh? by dokc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wanted to say that people and governments doesn't do enough or don't care enough about peace and people (other then them self).

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    117. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Along those lines, you don't even need to go offworld or into science fiction to find cultures who have significantly different perspectives on religion and experience of language than we do.

    118. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      They would be divided [...] and insisting that first contact is a sign of the end of days and the aliens are devils in disguise.

      Or not even disguised, in some cases.

    119. Re:Military the first one, huh? by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 2

      >600LY delay in communications is the deal breaker

      Even if an extraterrestrial intelligence were detected thousands of light years away, we could reasonably assume that they've been around a lot longer than we have. (it is unlikely that in our multi-billions-of-years-old galaxy, that their technological civilization emerged *exactly* at the same time ours did. ...whether or not you consider the delay in communication.)

      This means they could have long ago established outposts all across the galaxy, to which (whom) they can delegate decisions about what to communicate, or physically do. Such outposts could be very close to Earth.

      >trade for exotic technologies.

      Perhaps the "trade" is informational, or computational.

    120. Re:Military the first one, huh? by WowTIP · · Score: 2

      As for WW2, the honours would have to be shared between the USSR and the US.

      Well, given that 5 million German troops were lost on the eastern front against Soviet Russia and ~800 000 were lost on the western front against allied troops (also british, canadian, etc.), many would say a greater part of the honour would belong to USSR.

      Sources:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_II)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
    121. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might be religious nutjobs, on a galactic crusade.

      We will worship the almighty Zaphod, or taste their death rays.

    122. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Well, that's the thing. Part of the problem there was that the Americans were pumping all sorts of goodies at the bratty German kid. It took well into 1942 before they realised they were backing the wrong side and, as with so many alliances the US have been involved in since, they flip-flopped and started to come round to the idea that maybe these *weren't* the good guys after all.

      Once the US had bought some important technologies from Britain (like, aero engines that didn't totally suck - the US has never made a good engine) and effective radio equipment, then they were able to help quite a lot. They sure as hell didn't "win the war" by themselves, though. They very nearly lost it utterly.

    123. Re:Military the first one, huh? by WowTIP · · Score: 1

      That is what happens when you battle Ewok phalanxes. Especially in Sid's universe.

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
    124. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You don't know what you're talking about!

      The Americans fought WW2 because the nazis were evil and killing all the jews!

    125. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      If all the military did was blow shit up the planet would look like an eight ball.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    126. Re:Military the first one, huh? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You should count Japanese casualties also - that's 1.5 million, almost all of them courtesy of U.S.

      In simple terms, USSR won the war in Europe, U.S. won the war in Asia, everyone else by and large rode along.

    127. Re:Military the first one, huh? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Of course, given that "Mormon leaders and theologians have taught that these inhabitants are similar or identical to humans", one might imagine they'd not react well to tentacles or eye stalks.

      Don't worry, they'll just say that they've always meant it as in "spiritually similar" or some such.

    128. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Jappus · · Score: 1

      Just as broke as pretty much every other large economy these days, perhaps with the exception of China (but that's hard to measure). Take away any country's credit rating, and its great financial plan of financing everything through vast inter-dependent credits goes right down the toilet bowl. But that was hardly the point of my posting wasn't it?

      And yeah, certain European officials quite willingly cooperated with the United States government at that time (and I'm speaking about Afghanistan first and Iraq second, for quite obvious reasons) -- partially to not seem unsupportive of a grieving superpower whose populace at that point would have supported almost any wacky plan (as most people do when you rock their safety net just hard enough), and partially out of conviction of doing the right thing; the point is: you can always find such people.

      But, and that's important, they were not the ones that decided that war's the way to go. As bad as being an enabler for war is, having the mindset to actually take the torch and start the fire is quite another thing.

    129. Re:Military the first one, huh? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Well,if that's the case, here's a handy summary of what the article means.

      USA > Safe from alien invasion.
      Rest of World > Fucked!

    130. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military's job is fighting wars. Securing peace is the people's and governments' job.

      You think the military is separate from the government?

    131. Re:Military the first one, huh? by zigmeister · · Score: 1

      If you're insinuating that I occasionally indulge in movies that a grown man shouldn't even admit to, let alone watch you are correct. Unfortunately, I'm not talking about porn.

      --
      Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
    132. Re:Military the first one, huh? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      You can't find any *human* motives for harming us.

      Maybe not, but any alien species could easily share a common attitude of humans and many other species on our planet: They could just not care about us one way or another, but while carrying out their ordinary activities ("life"), they do things that kill us off.

      This isn't hypothetical. We're in the middle of a "mass extinction episode" on our world, and the extinctions are about 99% due to human activity. Only a few of these (e.g., the smallpox and measles viruses) have been explicit targets of humans. Most have died out do to "habitat loss" associated with spreading human habitation, agriculture, mining, etc. The humans responsible for the extinctions aren't intentionally killing off most species; they just don't notice or care about critters that are irrelevant to their own lives.

      This was part of the plot of the Hitchhiker's Guide novels, of course. In the first chapter, the Earth is vaporized (along with most of its life forms), simply because the planet happened to be in the way of a galactic construction crew's work, and we hadn't registered any objections in the nearest government office at Alpha Centauri. And it gets funnier from there on ...

      It's probably true that an alien species that finds us would probably view us as a cute new semi-intelligent species that's worth protecting. But if our own world is any guide, by the time that happens, we could well have been (nearly) exterminated by their construction crews, who can't be bothered to look out for insignificant life forms like us.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    133. Re:Military the first one, huh? by silentbrad · · Score: 1

      Actually, World War 1 started because Europe was full of militaristic (and mostly aristocratic) douche bags who wouldn't even take the offer not to start the War, because they already had all the plans made up and their little toy soldiers moved down from the attic to play with them.

      Really? I heard it was because someone called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.

    134. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      1) Everyone's broke. Do the terms "sub-prime", "Leman's", or "debt ceiling" mean anything to you?
      2) France doesn't want out of the eurozone. Sarkozy is currently cheer leading a massively federalist new treaty to shore it up (which will see France lose most of it's fiscal policy powers), along with Merkel.
      3) Fair point on Britain/Iraq. Blair was a lying weasel, who should really be sat in a court room at The Hague, if there were any justice...

    135. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you're using the England/Scotland conflict as a model. So our strategy should be to have the British and Afghansitani royal families interbreed, have the British monarch die without an heir, and then have Afghanistan bankrupt itself attempting to colonise Central America. A fool proof plan!

    136. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I find it tricky to believe that the cost of making gold in a particle accelerator would be greater than the cost of space/tiime-shattering FTL travel. I think it's probably fair to say that once you've achieved technology great enough to break the laws of physics for FTL travel, almost anything else you'd want to do would be a cake walk...

    137. Re:Military the first one, huh? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Well it's a completely valid point but it doesn't quite cover the whole scope of the SETI project. I don't imagine SETI actually has a lot of faith that they can see *current* communications between anyone; for one thing we just can't... unless they were in one of the very few close systems.

      Keep in mind that even if every intelligent civilization other than us evolved millions of years ahead of us at the same time (the hardest possible thing to detect, I suspect). We've got systems at differing distances offering looks into different points in their pasts.

      So if you assume* that every evolving race went through a similar phase that we're in now (pumping massive amounts of patterned EM off the planet) There should be *something* to detect *somewhere*. So then if you tasked G. Washington with surveying a ton of huts at different stages in their evolution you can bet that one of them would have tracks going back and forth (he doesn't need to see a messenger, just proof that there was one).

      The issue then becomes that for all we know it could be a tiny sliver of their history (we're getting close to being able to broadcast/receive below radiation floor at which point we disappear to others) and there are billions of planets to look at.

      *Of course I do realize that making such assumptions about alien development is already a bit of a laugh; It's not completely unreasonable though.

    138. Re:Military the first one, huh? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Your powers of perception are phenomenal. You've divined details of my plan, of which even I was not aware! Brilliant!

  7. Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do they have a bunch of "Space Marines" ready to jump out of the trunk of the Space Shuttle, like in Moonraker? Or are they working on "Space Warrior Robot Soldiers?" . . . definitely more geekier!

    Will our first contact with Alien Life be with military space drones? That ought to work out nice: "Oh, the Alien Military Drones' way of saying they like you, is to bite your Military Space Drone in the ankle!"

    Well, I guess I won't have to worry about such contacts happening in my lifetime. Unless we figure out how to surf those faster-than-light-neutrinos.

    Or maybe . . . "they" know how to do it?

    "Alien Charlie does surf!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by guttentag · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, I'll bite.

      We're not talking about Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger.

      USAF Space Command is responsible for military satellites that support other commands. For a while, it was also responsible for intercontinental ballistic missiles (Anyone remember War Games? Or Spies Like Us? "Do you know what those things can do? Suck the paint off your house and give your family a permanent orange afro." Space Command was responsible for "those things" that the 1980s believed would bring about the end of the world.), but in recent years traded that responsibility for "cyber operations" (you know, the people who are watching the Chinese who are reading your email).

    2. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, right, deep space radar... Maybe Kepler-22b doesn't have a Stargate?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not talking about Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger.

      Could we at least be taking about UESC Marines; Mjolnir cyborgs?

    4. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just saw Dangaioh for the first time and shit themselves over how high-quality the animation was. After they cross fought the bureaucracy of a functional government, perhaps they also realized that physics theories less than a century old wouldn't hold forever and that better mathematical models would emerge through mechanized observation and analysis rather than human introspection and creativity. Einstein is out, SETI is in. I guess their computers are faster and their lenses broader.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    5. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, from watching the declassified space documentary, "Stargate SG-1" they command a moderate size fleet of intergalactic-capable starships integrated with alien technology. They also regularly travel to other planets using an ancient alien device that creates wormholes.

    6. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

      The Secret War of Lisa Simpson, and amusing mashup

    7. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Are you saying the USAF no longer has ICBMs?

      Wargames, we used to laugh and laugh at the beginning of that movie . Not much else to do in a hole in the midwest.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by Frangible · · Score: 1

      Them thar giant nucular missiles were transferred to US Global Strike Command. It is no longer the responsibility of Space Command.

  8. Space Situational Awareness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't these planets hundreds of light years away? Their money would be better spent looking for potential Earth impacting asteroids or comets.

    1. Re:Space Situational Awareness? by captainpanic · · Score: 2

      Of course.

      But from the military's point of view, you cannot declare War on Asteroids, but you can declare War on Aliens. So, it's way more useful to find the aliens than to find the asteroids.

    2. Re:Space Situational Awareness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought you americans could declare and lose wars on anything? Drugs, for example?

    3. Re:Space Situational Awareness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget our unacknowledged losses in our wars on poverty, illiteracy, and terrorism as well!

      All these war losses sound positively French, but our key victory strategy is *not to acknowledge when we are defeated*! That way, we avoid the dishonor of surrender while *also* giving ourselves the opportunity to continue pumping trillions of dollars into lost causes!

      This seems a counterintuitive goal, but stay with me. It all becomes clear once you realize that these black holes that we are pouring all this treasure into just so happen to feed our military industrial complex, our bloated leech of a federal government bureaucracy, and our teachers unions (yeah, they suck at life, *but they vote regularly*)

      I anticipate a long future of US society continuing the vaunted tradition of maintaining our institutionalized failures.

    4. Re:Space Situational Awareness? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      Poverty, drugs, and now terrorism. At least there's an outlet for all the perverts since they can get hired by the TSA. Better publicly groping people than buying the windowless van.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    5. Re:Space Situational Awareness? by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      I'm not American, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:Space Situational Awareness? by Yev000 · · Score: 1

      Well.......

      Asteroids do suicide runs on our planet, that would fall in the "War on Terror" category.

  9. Oblig. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1
    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    1. Re:Oblig. by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      Moonbase chicks with purple hair and chrome miniskirts!

    2. Re:Oblig. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

      We may finally achieve the dreams of our ancient ancestors, who gazed up at the stars and thought, "I wonder if there are any bangable chicks up there?"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Oblig. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      For some reason, I pictured Sagan gettin' blazed up and thinking that exact thought.

    4. Re:Oblig. by Fned · · Score: 1

      "Billions and billions... of bodacious bazooms..."

    5. Re:Oblig. by Whiteox · · Score: 0

      -1 Offtopic? Surely a distinct lack of moderator humour :(

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    6. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cant wait for the movie...

  10. Jill Tarter by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 5, Informative

    I ran into Ms Tarter (the director of SETI) at the Oakland airport a few years ago and recognized her from her numerous bits of SETI branded gear she had.

    I was very pleased to find that she was both passionate and intelligent, as well as very pragmatic. We had the chance to talk for over and hour before the flight left and discussed many of the things that are interesting about the whole project.

    I certainly consider myself lucky to have seen a part of that and heard it first hand.

    1. Re:Jill Tarter by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but did she look like

      According to Google image search, a young Jodi Foster.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:Jill Tarter by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      She's in her 60s, I think. :-)

      No further offence intended to 60 year olds, but I certainly don't run with the image of highballs and boobs.

    3. Re:Jill Tarter by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      You should report the details of the most interesting parts of the discussion, then. Could make a whole damn article if it reflected the general direction of the project.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    4. Re:Jill Tarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows at that age it's 'Low balls' and 'Sagging boobs' :'D

  11. Habitable Zone.... by mlauzon · · Score: 2

    The funny thing is, just because our planet supports life in this so-called 'habitable zone', doesn't mean life cannot thrive outside of this zone, until we actually have interstellar travel we'll never know for sure!

    1. Re:Habitable Zone.... by Rennt · · Score: 2

      Of course - but it is still smarter to start looking in places where we know life can exist then it is to start with all the places that we don't.

    2. Re:Habitable Zone.... by Rennt · · Score: 2

      We are also far more likely to want to trade/compete/fight/have sex with 'habitable zone' aliens.

  12. Explore, conquer, colonize. by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Explore, conquer, colonize. We are humans. Resistance is futile.

    There's intelligent life on our planet, and we are happily killing it into extinction for our own expansion. Looking at the way we behave at our own planet, I think it is extremely likely that we would inhabit every planet we can reach if it is inhabitable. And then take over sooner or later, with or without a struggle.

    It's in the line of expectations that the military get involved early on. Humans have never explored anything unarmed.

    1. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Explore, conquer, colonize. We are humans. Resistance is futile.

      There's intelligent life on our planet, and we are happily killing it into extinction for our own expansion. Looking at the way we behave at our own planet, I think it is extremely likely that we would inhabit every planet we can reach if it is inhabitable. And then take over sooner or later, with or without a struggle.

      It's in the line of expectations that the military get involved early on. Humans have never explored anything unarmed.

      Blame natural evolution or god for creating us that way.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, humans might have explored stuff unarmed, but there are very few reports from those times on account of the lions/tigers/kraken/other beasts eating the first explorers because they were unarmed.

      And I say go for it. If it's empty, take it. If it's not, just throw coke bottles and big macs, show them some blockbuster movies and promise cheap ipads, and we don't have to do sh*t, they'll submit willingly.

    3. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pacifism is great and all that, but it only works if the other guy does NOT want to kill you.
      Now if you're dealing with a psychopath, hungry carnivore, mugger, hostile alien warriors, etc, pacifism will only get you the short end of the stick, often followed by a funeral - if they can find enough of you to bury.

    4. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by migla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Blame natural evolution or god for creating us that way.

      Nah. Obviously, any human action depends on god/evolution to allow it, but often "blame" should lie more directly on for example culture/ideas than on the underlying plumbing that facilitates them.

      In this case of violent human exploration it is true that genes are probably pretty directly involved as the humans explore in states of fear and greed, but ideas and culture is still a bigger factor, and also the one we can do something about.

      While we have the capacity for violence and feelings of fear, anger, revenge and greed, we are also capable to marvel and feel sympathy, to be righteous and to share. The higher plane of ideas and culture is where we can work, building on a foundation of the genetics of a social, loving animal and overcoming the scared greedy brute within.

      So, no, don't blame god or evolution, even if they're visibly present in the state of things, because also the malleable ideas and culture of fear, greed and ruthlessness are there, shaping the order of things at least as much. Ideas and culture we can work on more readily.

      Don't surrender to what is hardwired. Work around it in the software.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    5. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell kind of muggers do you have in the US?

    6. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pacifism is great and all that, but it only works if the other guy does NOT want to kill you.
      Now if you're dealing with a psychopath, hungry carnivore, mugger, hostile alien warriors, etc, pacifism will only get you the short end of the stick, often followed by a funeral - if they can find enough of you to bury.

      The best and safest way to deal with a psychopath is therapy or medical treatment.
      Many hungry carnivores will not consider you a prey unless you act like one.
      Muggers usually don't want to kill you unless you resist.
      Hostile alien warriors are fictional and are best dealt with without using violence unless Don Quixote is your role model.

      In all examples you gave, violence leads to a scenario where you are the most likely to end up dead.
      On those occations where violence would work you are already in a position where don't have anything to fear to begin with.

    7. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, if they've figured out how to efficiently travel between stars, i'd lay money that no weapons we have are going to do a damn thing to them. These movies where the backwoods hicks with a hunting rifle take down the interplanetary killing machine is just about the biggest grasp at unbelievable as possible.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Exactly. And the best way to defend yourself is forward defense. I learned this from a self-defense book by Bruce Lee that I studied in a book store when I was a kid. The method is not as easy as it might seem, though. It requires a constantly vigilant attitude and sharp senses. Basically, what you need to do first is train a lot of Jet Ki Do, Kit-tu, wing-chuck and all this shit. Then, you have to constantly watch your surroundings. If you see someone who looks suspicious or like a mugger, it's time for action. Suppose, for example, there is a suspiciously looking guy walking behind you. Forward defense means that you spot this guy early, and before he can do anything you kick the living daylight out of him without a warning. Since you have the initiative you will quickly overwhelm him---and you are safe and unharmed and can go on with your daily business. (Just make sure you kick him a few additional times while he's lying on the floor, so he cannot get after you.)

      Thank you Bruce Lee, for this marvelous book! And you, dear fellow /. readers, may thank me for this valuable information! I salute you!

    9. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      And WTF would we do against an alien civilization with technology so far ahead of ours that they are able to cross interstellar space to come here? Are you kidding me? There would not be any fight, there would not be a war. We don't even have the technology to leave this planet! We can't even retreat! If the aliens wanted to wipe us out, it would not be War of the Worlds, it would be an extermination. Literally the only thing we can do is hope that this doesn't happen and that any potential advanced life forms have progressed far enough as a society that they wouldn't want to kill us; which I think is honestly more likely the case anyway. I think a civilization that would have those tendencies (like, you know, ours) would wipe itself out way before going interstellar. The reasoning for this is simple; the vast amounts of energy required for interstellar travel could also be used to make weapons that would instantly destroy the species. All it takes is one psychopath/mistake/any other reason. It would likely take a rather peaceful society to make it past this stage (which is consequently, while we won't). Even if they are just kind of jerks, there is very little that they could want from us. Slave labor/food? With the technology they have, both of those concerns would likely be irrelevant. Resources? The Earth has nothing that can't be found in greater quantities elsewhere. The only thing we would really have to worry about is if they just wanted to kill us for fun, at which point we might as well not worry about it.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    10. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you see someone who looks suspicious or like a mugger, it's time for action. Suppose, for example, there is a suspiciously looking guy walking behind you. Forward defense means that you spot this guy early, and before he can do anything you kick the living daylight out of him without a warning. Since you have the initiative you will quickly overwhelm him---and you are safe and unharmed and can go on with your daily business. (Just make sure you kick him a few additional times while he's lying on the floor, so he cannot get after you.)

      Then, after you successfully neutralized the threat, confiscate his belonging to recover your energy spending and psychological and physical strain! After all, his money would have been spent on criminal activity and provisions anyway, so you are acting like a good citizen, preventing future crime.

    11. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the aliens wanted to wipe us out, it would not be War of the Worlds, it would be an extermination."

      My, my my, we just call it breakfast.

      The Aliens

    12. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Frangible · · Score: 1

      Well, we could send teams from USAF Space Command armed with P90s to distant planets with alien technology, and put together a "coalition of the willing" with allies who would defy the malevolent aliens' rule...

      Nah, some greedy idiot would probably pull the funding from that and we'd all die. Nevermind.

    13. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      Ok, lets stop the knee jerk reactions and take a breath.

      There's a lot you can do. Asymettric battles have occurred and continue to occur without one side dominating the other.

      Intelligence can garner some clue about what exactly we can expect and not expect. Example: While the US enjoys air superiority most of the time, using underground fortifications and transport routes can counter that without purchasing a massive air force or developing cutting edge aerospace technologies of your own.

      Economic theft of IP: See also, AIM-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#Compromised_technology)
      Manhatten Project / Fuchs & Rosenburgs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies)
      and the daily list of Chinese copies of technologies from Europe, Korea, Japan, etc.

      None of this is possible without knowing what's out there. Now the more speculative items...

      Of course, we can probably expect advanced technology races to have a high standard of living (beyond what we have here for 1st world countries). As such, minimum pay amounts may be lavish by any standard(i.e. flipping burgers earning $150,000 by todays standards, or via bringing back near-magical devices from the alien equivalent of Walmart and fetching much higher prices on Earth.

      --
      - Sig
    14. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      These movies where the backwoods hicks with a hunting rifle take down the interplanetary killing machine is just about the biggest grasp at unbelievable as possible.

      We have nuclear missiles and smart bombs, but lose soldiers to dumb little IEDs.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute, you're underestimating the situation at hand. It'd be like some third world nation facing a US that was willing to turn their whole country into radioactive molten glass. Underground bunkers don't do anything if a 20MT nuke is dropped on every square mile of land.

      An advanced race that could reach Earth wouldn't even need to interact with us to kill us all. A few rocks chucked at near light speed would sterilize the planet before we even realized they were coming. Or they could dump some nanomachines that'd selectively kill humans if they wanted the planet in one piece. Or maybe just something that'd make us want to surrender to them? We can't stop HIV or drug resistant bacteria, what makes you think we'd stand any chance against something orders of magnitude more complicated and sophisticated?

      Most likely the aliens wouldn't even care about us, how often do you pay attention to ants that you step on?

    16. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      Intelligent life on earth, to be sure. Sadly, none of it is in congress.

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    17. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "and before he can do anything you kick the living daylight out of him without a warning. "

      way to total miss the point and bastardize Bruce Lee's philosophy.

      You're a dick.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt. Fuckin' Ewoks.

    19. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ". Asymettric battles have occurred and continue to occur without one side dominating the other.
      that's because one side isn't willing to bring it's full force onto a population. The US could bomb ever city in the mid east to rubble,then Gas the survivors.

      And alien that can travel to other solar systems? They can just push a rock the size of Texas and throw it at us.
      Or blow up the moon.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it wil get you the long end that is the end of the baseballbat that has all of the force in it

    21. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Fned · · Score: 1

      The kind who, on occasion, kill co-operative victims for no reason.

    22. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by downhole · · Score: 1

      Mostly agree, though you seem to be more cynical than I am about the nature of the human race. All I would add is that it would be a good idea to not go out of our way to advertise ourselves to such races, such as by transmitting high-powered directional radio signals at them. We have no idea what their nature or motivation might be; all we know is that if they can get here, then they are probably more powerful than we could possibly imagine and could wipe us out in the blink of an eye.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    23. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      "and before he can do anything you kick the living daylight out of him without a warning. "

      way to total miss the point and bastardize Bruce Lee's philosophy.

      You're a dick.

      And it didn't even work! Bet he didn't see that one coming.

    24. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      This particular planet is 600 light years away. We could very well have the same capabilities you described in the time between them detecting our technology and their military response reaching us.

      Assuming that millions year old civilization will be forever like gods to us is as unwarranted as assuming they are necessarily peaceful.

    25. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's arguably not even hardwired. Many conspiracy theorist maintain that the greed and ruthlessness is business as usual from an elite that has the power and does what it can to maintain it.

    26. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by meglon · · Score: 1

      True... but that's the point, WE have nuclear missiles and smart bombs, and WE have to plane for a decade just to get to our moon.

      THEY on the other hand, mastered traveling between star systems. What kind of weapons do you suppose THEY have? I can see it now, Billy Bo Bob shoots and actually hits one of their infantry.... They withdraw from the area, then vaporize everything in 100 square miles with a single shot from some random small weapon they only recently remembered was in some closet somewhere, which is good because they don't want to destroy the entire planet after all.

      I'm just saying, the technology needed for the interstellar travel is just slightly more than what it takes to produce any weapon we have, and of course, anytime we produce a weapon, we also try to produce a defense against it.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    27. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by tibman · · Score: 1

      "i'm a psychopath, here to kill you"

      ".. oh, i'll call the hospital for you GAHHH!"

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    28. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fairly successful strategy, adopted by many organisms and institutions on our planet, is to be initially peaceful, but to respond to violence with more violence. There's a reasonable chance that aliens would follow the same strategy - and if they could travel between stars, they could probably wipe us out without even trying, Hollywood notwithstanding. If so, I really really want the human first-contacters to be completely pacifistic, because if they make a single action that is interpreted as being hostile, they're putting out entire species at risk.

  13. Situational awareness? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Funny
    Before I read that the array was going to be used by the Air Force for non-SETI purposes (something not made apparent by the summary), my thought was: "The planet is 600 light years away. Let's say we detect radio signals from Kepler-22b. That means we know that on a planet 3 quadrillion miles away, some species used radio signals 600 years ago. That's not exactly situational awareness..."

    I imagined a conversation about "situational awareness" during the Iraq war going something like this:

    General: So, what's the situation?
    Advisor: Sir! In the 15th century, the Aztecs defeated Azcapotzalco, sir!
    General: Excellent!

    1. Re:Situational awareness? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to make clear: The Air Force does not want to check Kepler 22b. Here's what they want:

      AFSPC, through the Space Innovation and Development Center (SIDC), is currently researching the possible use of the ATA to augment the already extensive sensors of the Space Surveillance Network, potentially leveraging the array to help increase space situational awareness. Initial demonstrations show promise for the ATA to track transmitting satellites in Low Earth Orbit, Medium Earth Orbit and, most promising, in Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO), which is home to the most costly, highly-utilized, and vital satellites that orbit the earth. A collision and subsequent debris field in GEO could permanently remove the GEO belt from worldwide use.

    2. Re:Situational awareness? by dintech · · Score: 1

      Here's what they say they want...

    3. Re:Situational awareness? by Frangible · · Score: 1

      This. Mod parent up.

      In this day and age of cuts to the F-22 and F-35 programs, the likelihood of the USAF spending money on "deep space radar telemetry" to check for aliens is practically nil, so I'm not sure why more people weren't skeptical of the misleading summary. Plus, as you know, the Cheyenne Mountain complex got cancelled a couple years back in budget cuts.

      One thing that also shouldn't be overlooked is that this bails out SETI's ATA which otherwise would have been shut down due to lack of funding. I think SETI has some fans among the USAF Space Command who don't want to see it die. Maybe the array is useful and cost-effective for scanning for objects in geosynchronous orbit and maybe it isn't, but I think there's more to the fact that the entire thing would've been shut down without Space Command's intervention than mere coincidence.

    4. Re:Situational awareness? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      In other words the Air Force is acting like the Coast Guard for space.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  14. In other news... by muckracer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple quietly got a grant from the U.S. Air Force Space Command to develop a virus for 'space-craft defensive measures'...

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've also been granted several "on a spacecraft" patents.

    2. Re:In other news... by stiggle · · Score: 1

      But only after other people have confirmed there is a market need.

    3. Re:In other news... by captjc · · Score: 1

      I...uh...believe there...uh...were also...uh...also several papers ...uh...published on the topic of...uh...Chaos...uh...Chaos Theory...uh...as well.

      Uh...Also check out...uh...reruns of ...uh...Law and...uh...Order Criminal...uh...Criminal Intent on...uh...uh...USA! Characters...uh...Welcome.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    4. Re:In other news... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Also a patent on rectangular solar panels with straight sides.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The AFSPC's vision:
    "Global Access, Persistence and Awareness for the 21st Century"

    Their mission:
    Provide Resilient and Cost-Effective Space and Cyberspace Capabilities for the Joint Force and the Nation

    http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/

    How does searching exoplanets fit into either their mission or their vision?

    I'm all for what they're doing and SETI in general, but it doesn't make sense.

  16. Habitable zone for aliens along Arizona border by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    "The funny thing is, just because our planet supports life in this so-called 'habitable zone', doesn't mean life cannot thrive outside of this zone, until we actually have interstellar travel we'll never know for sure!"

    Both Tucson and Phoenix seems to be habitable zones for aliens. Life appears to thriving well as far as i can tell from space (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.888813,-111.489258&spn=1.399932,1.977539&t=h&vpsrc=6&z=9).

    As they have been terraforming for decades, interstellar travels seem completely redundant.

  17. HAnd how will they know that ? by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    kepler 22 is ~600 LY away. At the best case even if we were sending a message today , they would not receive is at roughly christmas 2611 and even at average 20% c speed their ship would not be there before many millennium, to find either a highly advanced civilization, or barbarian from a fallen society. How would they *divine* that it was sent by our military ? Would they even *CARE* that some folk military 600 LY away has their panty in a knot ? And we are not even sending a message, as far as I can read we are only checking.

    Anyway the article make it clear that space command seems to be more interested into mundane stuff.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have it backwards, yet correct. We're only looking at them, so what we will see is how they were 600 years ago.

      If they looked our way today, they would have front-row seats to the rise of the Ottoman empire.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or barbarian from a fallen society

      ...or most likely, barbarian apes.

    3. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they looked our way today, they would have front-row seats to the rise of the Ottoman empire.

      Front row seats? If I had front row tickets to a concert, and they seated me 600 light years away, I'd be pissed. Unless it was a Disaster Area concert. Or Justin Bieber.

    4. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by funkmotor · · Score: 0

      Does the american military realise that three ships have already set sail from europe carrying deadly biological weapons, and that when they arrive on the other side of the Atlantic disease will kill millions, hundreds of thousands will be enslaved and it will change the world forever. The ships are called Santa Maria, Nina and Pinta. Just thought you should be situationally aware.

    5. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there

    6. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by enemorales · · Score: 1

      Oh God... no. Please do not let them see Justin Bieber! Imaging they could wee him suddently made me feel like using only underwear in the street.

    7. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the question: what is the earliest point in our history that could give a signal measurable across 600ly that there is an intelligent, tool using species on earth? If we gave off a signal (co2 emissions, visible cities, etc) longer than the transit time for light to them, plus transit time of physical objects from them to us, they could be here already. My guess is we could be detectable starting about 2-300 year ago. so, we are safe for a few centuries. however, if they sent out robot probes across the galaxy to gather data up close, and chose us as a goldilocks planet, they could have become aware of us even earlier. I dont know if if the military thought of this, but its reasonable to target any goldilocks planets for observation for possible military threats. What is crazy is if we let the militarists determine our diplomatic relations. as said above, if they know about us now, they are far superior to us technologically. we could then only hope that they are more advanced spiritually. The military could also use any evidence of their existence to get the message out to all nations: stop fighting now, they are watching us, time for a 1 world govt so they dont see us as a threat to our planet and wipe us out (leaving the other life forms intact, ala varley)

  18. i'll just watch the movie... by ushere · · Score: 1

    avatar.

  19. Finally! by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    I've been waiting so long to hit on purple haired women...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzNkern1Fc

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    1. Re:Finally! by dintech · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'll end up just as jaded as you are here on Earth. All I see is Orange, Greenette, Purplehead...

    2. Re:Finally! by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      UFO -> Matrix? Well done!

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
  20. Have they detected oil there? by kubusja · · Score: 1

    Can we create with French 'Friends of Kepler-22b' and free them from their opressive dictators?

  21. So that evidence can be suppressed... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

    The Air Force pays for the research. The Air Force owns the output of the research. The Air Force suppresses report stating national security.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:So that evidence can be suppressed... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Shut up and think.

      Finding an Alien race would be a fucking blank check to do what needs to be done to get more information.

      It's like the chuckle heads who think NASA as secret information about aliens.

      It makes no sense. NASA find alien life, again, blank check.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. Hold your horses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't want go to war with aliens

    Then you had better pray that they don't have oil.

    Otherwise, in a flash they'd be declared part of the Axis of Evil by the same old Assholes of Evil. Then Yosemite Bush would 'lead' the charge and declare "Mission Accomplished" by the time they saw the dark side of the moon through their windows.

    1. Re:Hold your horses. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I think the war in Iraq was more about Bush Jr.'s personal vendetta about trying to kill his father than oil. Also, assuming we don't have FTL travel, they would need to have a lot of oil to justify the 1200+ year trip

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Hold your horses. by tophermeyer · · Score: 2

      Also, assuming we don't have FTL travel, they would need to have a lot of oil to justify the 1200+ year trip

      Yes. Not only oil, It's hard to imagine any natural resource being so valuable that it justifies the trip. Unless we find some super efficient energy source that allows us to zoom around the galaxy like they do on Star Trek, acquiring resources will likely never be worth the effort.

  23. This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Fermi paradox isn't just a cute bit of philosophy. Our galaxy should be teeming with life. We live on prime real estate, the Thrints should have colonised it back in the Cambrian.

    So either we're unique (inconceivable), ~8.8 billion years isn't long enough for any other species anywhere in the Milky Way to have kicked off colonisation (improbable), or something is silencing them (merely unlikely and scary).

    Maybe we should take a look at that third possibility, and take a good hard look around rather than shouting "Here we are! Hey, over here, life!" into the void. Paranoid? Yes, but we're gambling the species on it, and the costs are essentially pocket lint.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Drake equation is widely mocked, but it's still our best current method for dealing with this sort of question. I have seen one attempt at enumerating it that included a term for the duration that a planet spends within a star's habitable zone. That term alone ruled out the rise of multicellular life on a large number of worlds simply because a world didn't remain in the right temperature range long enough for anything but alien bacteria-like things to evolve. The planet gets liquid water, then wobbles out of place again and either freezes or boils. End of life on that rock. The final figure that it came out with was probably biased towards the pessemistic side, suggesting that there are about 0.1 extant technological civilisations on average per galaxy.

      As I said, I think that figure is too low, but if we assume it's in the right region it explains our observations. It would mean we are not entirely unique in the universe, but we may well be unique in this galaxy. That fits in with our observations of the galaxy so far.

    2. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OR the distances involved are the hurdle. If the closest habitable world is 600 light years away, then the civilisation needs to evolve enough to stick a spacecraft that can survive with about 30 generations of crew on board, and ALSO for there to be life on that rock, at a suitable stage of development.

      This is not a small barrier.

    3. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kepler 22b is the nearest planet that might be habitable, and it's 600ly away. Even if you could move at 99% of c, it would be more than 1200 years round trip. What was our civilization like twelve hundred years ago, and how much change has happened since then? Entire civilizations have risen and fallen in that time! There's just no way to get there and back. Nobody has "kicked off colonization" because c is the absolute speed limit. Sorry for all your space opera fantasies; there's no warp drive and without it there's no reason to spend the resources trying to reach other possibly habitable planets.

    4. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for all your space opera fantasies; there's no warp drive and without it there's no reason to spend the resources trying to reach other possibly habitable planets.

      You are right, it is obvious that we need a Higgs field disruptor, a warp drive is just silly.

    5. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by jcgam69 · · Score: 1

      I think the most likely explanation is that we are just the product of freakish accidents (giant impacts and other perfectly timed extinction events) which is not likely to be repeated no matter how many habitable planets there are in our galaxy.

    6. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ", or something is silencing them"
      yes, Time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      So either we're unique (fairly likely), ~8.8 billion years isn't long enough for any other species anywhere in the Milky Way to have kicked off colonisation (almost certainly)

      ftfy

      Given the timescales on which evolution seems to occur (billions of years to go from the start of like to the start of multicellular life on Earth, for example, and no reason to suspect that's atypical), we may very well be the first, and it may be a few billion years before the second comes along. Add to that the absence of FTL travel, despite the dreams of sci-fi geeks everywhere, and it's almost certain no one has kicked off interstellar colonization, and frankly unlikely anyone (including us) ever will on a large scale.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    8. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether we're sending signals or not, anybody having both the ability to travel and curiosity will notice Earth's planetary oxygen signature (specifically O2 and O3) and have a look-see at least. That is a decent clue that photosynthesis is going on, and therefore other life might be down here. I'm sure our own tech isn't too far from being able to do that, once we can resolve an extrasolar planet past a few pixels and do a spectrograph as it passes through the light from it's parent star.

      Now if you're worried about somebody seeing signs of technology... When the dark side of our planet is observed, it's also likely that it's albedo is higher than what infrared and average temperature would indicate. You didn't forget to turn off your lights at night, did you?

      The Hawking way of staying hidden via radio silence is fairly pointless given the other tell-tale signs on Earth. Maybe hostile aliens did come by at one point and thought they easily finished the job with the dinosaurs? At least that would make for some fun fiction.

    9. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, I agree with your statement that as a precaution we should not be announcing our presence. However, there is another possibility you neglected to mention:

      It's likely that the vast distances of space cannot be navigated within any practical time frame regardless of scientific advancement. Just because we dream of wormholes and warp fields doesn't mean they actually exist or can be used to transport matter across vast distances. We (and thousands of other intelligence species) may just be limited to our immediate area of space. Yes, a species can launch STL generation ships, but beyond a few light years it probably doesn't make sense.

    10. Re:This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the third possibility, it could be that intelligence arises but is invariably wiped out - either by self-destruction or by factors that they cannot control ....

  24. New SETI business plan, courtesy of USAF: by paiute · · Score: 1

    Our five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before so we can target them and take them out.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:New SETI business plan, courtesy of USAF: by syousef · · Score: 1

      Our five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before so we can target them and take them out.

      If you're going to quote Star Trek, get it right. The plan was for Kirk to shag as many green and blue 3 breasted women as he could.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:New SETI business plan, courtesy of USAF: by paiute · · Score: 1

      Our five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before so we can target them and take them out.

      If you're going to quote Star Trek, get it right. The plan was for Kirk to shag as many green and blue 3 breasted women as he could.

      Kirk: Our five-year mission is to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
      Spock: Ah. The human obsession with rogering virgins, Captain?
      Kirk: Mr. Spock, have you forgotten already the pubic scorpions of Zednria VI?
      Scotty: Aye - I had ta divert all power ta tha condom shields and we nearla fell outa orbit.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    3. Re:New SETI business plan, courtesy of USAF: by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Yes. The practice of breeding diplomatic relations into being has been part of our culture since the first of our homosapien ancestors screwed a Neanderthal.

      If it worked for Cave-Folks it'll work for the Federation of Planets. Why fix something that's not broken?

  25. Funding is funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incidentally, they would have pointed at Kepler 22b anyway, so the USAF probably wasted some cash (shocker).

  26. Translation: by gedankenhoren · · Score: 1

    The USAF, still flush, has decided to buy the sort of science experiment whose vain, reel-to-reel-style bookishness projects just the image they've been searching for: that of a CIA drone operative mindlessly and with great ease and accuracy pressing a particular button.

  27. Re:UFO by Phrogman · · Score: 2

    My all-time favourite TV show when I was a kid. To be honest I think it could actually be remade in the modern day as one of the new-fangled "gritty" TV shows as was done with Battlestar Galactica. If HBO did it we would get to see the moon-chicks in the nude on a regular basis :P

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  28. Tracking GPS satellites, not aliens by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry to disappoint, but TFS is way off. (So unusual for slashdot...) Actual information is here.

    "Space situational awareness" is not Colonel O'Neil looking out for an invading alien fleet. It means tracking satellites and space debris to avoid collisions. The USAF is renting the SETI array to track GPS satellites.

    1. Re:Tracking GPS satellites, not aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it not seem odd to you that they do not know EXACTLY where the GPS satellites are at all times? How does GPS work if there is any doubt, even a centimeter, in where the satellites are?

    2. Re:Tracking GPS satellites, not aliens by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Hence the need to track them, no?

      Seriously: If you read the linked article you'll see that tracking GPS satellites is the initial testing. If all goes well, they will be tracking other stuff later.

    3. Re:Tracking GPS satellites, not aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they WANT you to think.

      It is obviously a cover for "Deep Space Telemetry."

    4. Re:Tracking GPS satellites, not aliens by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Somebody has to track the trackers?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    5. Re:Tracking GPS satellites, not aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The USAF is renting the SETI array to track GPS satellites."

      I should think that, of all things, GPS sat's really ought to know exactly where they are ! without any need for tracking .. no?

  29. Makes sense that it is military. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Which group in the American gov., other than those researching, backed the concept of AGW? It was the military. Why? Because they did enough of the calculations to see that it was close, if not accurate, and then went on to play out scenerios. They came up as being that there is going to be a lot of chaos in the future.

    As such, I would hope that the DOD would be looking into issues of possible non-terrestrial life considering the possibility for a major impact to our nation and the world.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Re:UFO by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Just so long as it isn't too realistic. Woo Hoo! Low gravity flab! It could be hard to get good excercise at 1/6th the gravity. But then again at least there wouldn't be as much sag...

  31. Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson by GregC63 · · Score: 2

    Mr. President, we must not allow a habitable exoplanet gap...

  32. Stargate Commnad by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Is the big reveal due soon?

  33. 600 light years by JohannesJ · · Score: 1

    This planet is 600 light years away,. So if we do hear signals from there, they are 600 years old. Radio as we know it here on earth under 100 years old . So our radio signals haven't even travelled 100 light years from earth yet

  34. Will military funding of SETI allow censorship? by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Soooo.... does the fact that the military is funding SETI entitle them to a kill switch if the Paul Allen array (I assume this is the recipient of the funding) finds anything? In addition to the obvious socio-political implications of the discovery of ET, I have heard that the armed services are rife with religious fundamentalists who might be very upset to know that God didn't create this universe solely for them?

    Anyway, perhaps we should be concerned if prominent SETI researchers suddenly start to go missing...

  35. In other news by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    There is a US Air Force Space Command.

    Now that's what I call a cushy berth.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  36. conspire by zlives · · Score: 1

    hey lets all add this client that "detects" alien life, funded by you favorite govmnt :)

  37. The Real Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they have OIL?

  38. Were they broadcasting 600 years ago? by PimpDawg · · Score: 0

    This is sort of the problem with SETI. We will actually be checking if they had an advanced enough civilization that could broadcast into space... 600 years ago. We have only had electrical power generation for 130 years.

  39. Invasion Imminent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if Kepler-22b is 600 light years away, and artificial radio transmissions are discovered coming from it, that means they would have had to have invented and started using powerful radio transmitters at least 600 years ago. Wouldn't that mean the civilization there is at least 500 years more technologically advanced than we are?

  40. Funding plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of trying to get USAF to pay the bill, why not just announce "We've found oil on Kepler-22b?"

    SETI nothing, you'll have a fleet of oil tycoons on the launch pad ready for blastoff tomorrow. And if/when they finally colonize a new planet and establish a base of operations, you can tell them you lied. "No oil, but welcome to the future, bitches"

  41. in space there is no sound barrier by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    if the missile was smaller than a house and traveling fast enough to reach us in less than 10,000 years we probably wouldn't see it.

    I wonder what a 100 ton slug accelerated at 1g for 1 years would do. google says: (9.8 (m / (s^2))) * 1 year = 309 257 875 m / s
    Obviously Eisenstein doesn't let me do that easily, but still pretty shocking. (an impossible specific impulse is required)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:in space there is no sound barrier by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of that frogs-on-the-road joke:
      - Hey! Watch out there's an incoming
      - What?

  42. Crazy people are sometimes right. by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

    If we forever fail to re-examine the delusions of crazy people we'd still believe that the Sun circles the Earth.

    Most of the major leaps forward in science and technology have at one point or another been considered delusional. You might think they nuts. It'll be interesting who is remembered by history as closed-minded jackassed when all is said and done.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  43. Reason why I'm sure there's no "intelligent" alien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (First of all, sorry if I’m making spelling mistake, I’m French Canadian. But I’ll try to explain myself as best as I can)

    Basically, I'm still surprised how people put so much belief about the existence of other intelligent alien life. I mean, take a look at our history. Our universe was born around 13.75 billion years ago. Our solar system is a good 4.54 billion years old. First evidence of life comes from around 3.8 billion years ago and the first trace of “homo” (our ancestor) maybe 2.5 million years ago. The first civilisation, probably a good 10 000 years ago. And only for the last 100-150 years, we started to evolve really fast.

    My point? Let’s say we start colonizing space in the 22th century. That would mean that in 13.75 billion years, there’s maybe only two centuries that separate the time between the creation of the radio and the colonisation of space. One little change (slightly different sun, earth a little further from the sun etc.) and this period would have happened a billion years earlier, or later.

    So basically, if there’s any alien form, chances are that they are either in bacterial form, or they would have found us a looong time ago.

  44. Kepler's Importance to Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me thinks Kepler will end-up being one of the most important scientific instruments in the history of mankind. Too bad our president is so hostile to science / NASA and JPL (as well as private business). If I was president, there would be a massive sky survey based on Kepler to scan a much, much larger % of our neighbors for planets in the habitual zone followed by specific planet studies (looking for signs of life / intelligence). I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama cancel Kepler to repurpose the money to buy votes for the DNC. The guy makes me sick to my stomach.

  45. Religion? by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    I can think of at least one human-like motive that might result in super-advanced aliens coming here and attacking us: Religion. At various times, various human religious groups have decided that everyone else has to Believe As We Do Or Die(TM). If humans are susceptible to this kind of mass hysteria, I have to at least admit the possibility that our hypothetical aliens might be, too.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  46. Hello, by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Hello, alien friends. Hellooooo........... Can you confirm that there is no Christian God? Not being sure if a moral and omniscient being is watching us surf internet porn is driving some of us nuts.

    We await your answer... we have beer and snacks.

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  47. Scientific nosiness might be the reason by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    After finding the God particle, scientists will say: "Hey let's find the Devil particle!"

    Then we will escalate experiments till we manage to blow up Earth with one.

    Fermi paradox solved, some of the most advanced lifeforms just blow themselves up.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
  48. We have really nothing to fear. by madhi19 · · Score: 1

    Say aliens do exist and I believe odds are good on that score (We are here aren't we?) we have nothing to worry about. They are either at our technological level, bellow us or ahead of us. And they either are violent, savage and psychopathic like us or pacifist and benevolent you know unlike us! If they have the same technological level or bellow us it does not matter because we can't reach them and they can't reach us. If an alien civilization that are as savage and vicious as we are reach a level of technology above us they will use it to destroy themselves you know like we are doing! The big question to ask is not if alien do exist but why are advanced benevolent aliens not contacting us? The best answer to that question come from a line on the third season of Torchwood. "Sometimes the Doctor must look at this planet and turn away in shame."

  49. How will they know when they've found it? by hicksw · · Score: 1

    And just what is the radio signature for unobtanium?
    --
    I hope this comment creates a much-needed gap in the discussion.

  50. Yesh!!! by metaforest · · Score: 1

    As far as I can tell no one has referred back to SETI's most vocal spokesman... Mr. Billion & Billions himself... Carl Sagan.... who is probably twisting up a fatty IN HIS GRAVE to celebrate the reactivation of SETI.

    Yo, Carl... pass de duchy on the left hand side...

    Peace, out!

  51. Airforce interested in habitable planets? by cancerIFA · · Score: 1

    Shhh! Don't tell anyone but it's really the next location for Camp X-Ray

  52. Lets be clear by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    We have only made one object that has left our solar system. It took 33 years to do so. It is less than 15 light minutes away.

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/07/2127247/voyager-1-exits-our-solar-system

    Millennium refers to 1000 years.

    My calculations indicate if we take known data (I would argue our space faring expertise hasn't gotten all that better since the 70's) and project it to a distance of 600 light years (and this doesn't even take into consideration deceleration), it would take about 14 million years just to smash into the planet.

    or about 14,000 millenniums, which technically is many, but I would suggest that word isn't quite strong enough.

    Heck, at best given we have some fantastic magic alien detection device that travels the speed of light, all we can do is say that 600 years in the PAST there was alien life.

    Hell, if you can build a device that can detect if HUMAN life here on earth will still be here 600 years from now, you are probably doing pretty good!

    Just think about it. Imagine sending a signal 600 years ago, and now trying to receive that result, I mean the technological differences would be immense!

    So in short, the Air Force is dumb. But hey if they want to give money to SETI I am all for it! :) Its probably more useful way to spend money anyway than those F35's! ;)
     

  53. is possible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    600 light years... that will take a whole lot of energy to punch a ship to near light speed and then to punch is back down again... If you can get it going 299900 Km/Second you have a Relativistic time dilation effect of ~13.76241 and are going ~0.99736% the speed of light...

    so 600 light years takes 601.588 Earth time years to travel... but Ship time time dilates and becomes ~43.712 years (not counting the acceleration time or deceleration time).

    But the energy required would be a whole lot beyond huge so the mass of the ship would need to be small... thus it is best to send a Robot Incubator Colony Seed Ship with Instant Humans to grow if it's suitable. The humans are carried as sperm and eggs frozen till the time is right... then you grow them and educate them with androids as the first generations of parents. No point condemning existing people to misery in space unless there is a suitable home.

    Also this way you can cut back on the energy requirements and let the ship take a couple of hundred years ship time instead... getting the ship up to 0.9 light speed would take less energy and take ~666.666... Earth years... and have a time dilation effect of ~2.294 and a speed of 269813.2122 Km/Second... would take about ~290.618 years ship time... robots wouldn't mind that... we might but the robots and frozen seeds wouldn't.

    So every bit over 0.9 light speed really cuts down on the time but chews up a much larger amount of energy...

    Our Robot Incubator Colony Seed Ship with Instant Humans ship really needs to be as small as possible... this means that upon arrival in the destination solar system it would use raw materials there, such as asteroids, to grow a space based habitat and manufacturing system from onboard Nanotechnology that we send. Then it grows the humans and scans the solar system in detail to gather information and plan the colony.

    Should life exist there we have a much bigger challenge.