"If a species on the edge of the galaxy had begun sending out ships at 1% of the speed of light when they appeared, then by now they would have gone the length of the galaxy 61 times..."
I find that very simplistic. They would have had to stop for pee breaks.
One one hundredth of a species life span is still significant, negating your statement of his being absurd. Projecting a hundred million year life span for a species (given current knowledge) is actually more absurd than his statement. This becomes multiplied given your assumption that they are space faring (and therefore much more prone to population isolation) for that 100M.
That's a bad scifi idea. They would be more advanced than us and we're almost to the point of manufacturing the entirety of our food supply. It would also be easier to simply keep us in stocks like we do our domestic food animals.
Both the Drake equation and "The Great Filter" are only parlor talk -- good for conversation, meaningless for science. The DE is filled with unanswerable variables. The GF is worst, not even being defined (I read TFA). Both are only conjecture.
Were that the case, the universe would be behaving in multiple ways, as multiple viewers see it behaving differently and science would not work at all. Science does, so that's not true.
That's the point of science. To eliminate personal view.
any statement we make about its nature will invariably be subjective
Baloney. Experimental science is all about proving that wrong.
From your point of view, it's more moral. Others might think that allowing known destruction to continue is not. Add to that just how "effective" monitoring, locating computers and helping the owners clean them has been to date and their disagreement isn't baseless.
Oh bull. We have no need whatsoever to first "find out how life started". That's what speculation is for.
Life will have characteristics. Intelligent life will have characteristics. Intelligent life that has discovered the use of remote communication will have characteristics. None of which are necessary to know in intimate detail to understand that we have found life.
Think not? We're only now understanding the relationship of fungus to ourselves and yet have understood it to be life for centuries. We only recently discovered that ciliates have a different genetic code and yet understood them to be life upon first observation.
We, by the way, are looking for signs of life on various moons, mars and any damn where we suspect advanced chemical reactions are occurring.
It's that when we find water and an atmosphere we become very interested because we know for a fact that life can occur in such conditions.
Multiple universes are a parlor game invented by guys who want to justify sitting around all day and daydreaming. No more. Well, yes. They're a good way to develop a storyline.
Look around. The younger generation is doing just as much harm or even more so (Anonymous anyone?) than the older in terms of privacy. Don't delude yourself that once they're gone it'll be all peaches and cream.
Baloney. I have spoken to many cops traffic and otherwise and on many occasions have not called them sir or any other title. Just don't be disrespectful. That may be a difficult distinction for some, but there it is.
Added to that, the gene is expressed only in the leafage and so only affects the cutworms that eat it, doing nothing against the caterpillars that eat the cob.
Mother Earth is not a reputable source. You neglected to point to the verdict. He was found guilty, and if you were at all familiar with the case specifics, he did indeed go about purposefully using that seed. He used seeds that fell from trucks onto the edge of the property, not pollinated.
Uh no, not from GM'd seeds they haven't. Those seeds come from Monsanto and the farmers sign a contract that excludes harvesting and replanting. Don't want that clause? Purchase other seeds and make do with the lower yields.
Slashdot Mirror
Context. He's talking about using without permission.
"If a species on the edge of the galaxy had begun sending out ships at 1% of the speed of light when they appeared, then by now they would have gone the length of the galaxy 61 times..."
I find that very simplistic. They would have had to stop for pee breaks.
One one hundredth of a species life span is still significant, negating your statement of his being absurd. Projecting a hundred million year life span for a species (given current knowledge) is actually more absurd than his statement. This becomes multiplied given your assumption that they are space faring (and therefore much more prone to population isolation) for that 100M.
Ba dum bump.
That's a bad scifi idea. They would be more advanced than us and we're almost to the point of manufacturing the entirety of our food supply. It would also be easier to simply keep us in stocks like we do our domestic food animals.
Both the Drake equation and "The Great Filter" are only parlor talk -- good for conversation, meaningless for science. The DE is filled with unanswerable variables. The GF is worst, not even being defined (I read TFA). Both are only conjecture.
And apparently you're too damn dumb to check the dictionary.
Webster's Unabridged
mis.spell (mis spelÃ), v.t., v.i., -spelled or -spelt, -spell.ing.
the universe pretty much exists in our minds' eye
Were that the case, the universe would be behaving in multiple ways, as multiple viewers see it behaving differently and science would not work at all. Science does, so that's not true.
That's the point of science. To eliminate personal view.
any statement we make about its nature will invariably be subjective
Baloney. Experimental science is all about proving that wrong.
Wow. All that depending from solipsism.
"'reality' (observed nature)". Uh no, it's "observed nature (reality)". Reality exists, then we observe it.
Reality is not dependent upon human observation.
ID explains nothing, hence it's not scientific. Unless you would care to explain how the ID is diddling. Not that it is, but how it is.
See, that's the problem. They never, never try to explain the how, always leaving it mystical and untestable and therefore unscientific.
From your point of view, it's more moral. Others might think that allowing known destruction to continue is not. Add to that just how "effective" monitoring, locating computers and helping the owners clean them has been to date and their disagreement isn't baseless.
Your post is speculation. Nice speculation, but speculation.
Oh bull. We have no need whatsoever to first "find out how life started". That's what speculation is for.
Life will have characteristics. Intelligent life will have characteristics. Intelligent life that has discovered the use of remote communication will have characteristics. None of which are necessary to know in intimate detail to understand that we have found life.
Think not? We're only now understanding the relationship of fungus to ourselves and yet have understood it to be life for centuries. We only recently discovered that ciliates have a different genetic code and yet understood them to be life upon first observation.
We, by the way, are looking for signs of life on various moons, mars and any damn where we suspect advanced chemical reactions are occurring.
It's that when we find water and an atmosphere we become very interested because we know for a fact that life can occur in such conditions.
Multiple universes are a parlor game invented by guys who want to justify sitting around all day and daydreaming. No more. Well, yes. They're a good way to develop a storyline.
Tools are only educational as long as they work. If you cannot fix it, it's also hard to call it a "tool".
'... communists who suggest that capitalism is exploiting the workers are "pressured into silence"...'
Uh, bullshit.
Go to any university. Provide something more substantial than a bland assertion.
Look around. The younger generation is doing just as much harm or even more so (Anonymous anyone?) than the older in terms of privacy. Don't delude yourself that once they're gone it'll be all peaches and cream.
Lemme guess... the new Illuminati, right?
So, you believe that in the Muslim countries where slavery is still practiced by the majority of citizens, it's OK?
Baloney. I have spoken to many cops traffic and otherwise and on many occasions have not called them sir or any other title. Just don't be disrespectful. That may be a difficult distinction for some, but there it is.
Um, bullshit. Having watched hours of Washa, she is clearly using grammar.
I love conspiracy addicts. So Monsanto edited the court records and newspaper coverage as well? Wikipedia is only a friggin' starting point. Read.
See my earlier post. The guy lied. He scooped seeds and planted them, not pollinated.
Added to that, the gene is expressed only in the leafage and so only affects the cutworms that eat it, doing nothing against the caterpillars that eat the cob.
Mother Earth is not a reputable source. You neglected to point to the verdict. He was found guilty, and if you were at all familiar with the case specifics, he did indeed go about purposefully using that seed. He used seeds that fell from trucks onto the edge of the property, not pollinated.
Provide some cites. I'm familiar with most of what is going on with Monsanto and those cases are not as black and white as you promote.
Uh no, not from GM'd seeds they haven't. Those seeds come from Monsanto and the farmers sign a contract that excludes harvesting and replanting. Don't want that clause? Purchase other seeds and make do with the lower yields.