I beg to differ. The greatest discovery would be: do WE exist?
If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to ask. Descartes already answered that one about 350 years before you were born.
Re:Worth it... depends
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How would you detect an amoeba 1000 light years away?
The same way you detect an intelligent civilization that does NOT use radio. You literally look for them. What if you took... I don't know, say 50% of the resources that SETI uses and invest that into planet finding telescopes. Eventually, provided more discoveries lead to more funding, we will be able to actually SEE planets from other solar systems. We can see the signs of life on earth from space. Given the technology, why couldn't we see if life exists elsewhere. I think we have a much better chance at finding a planet with oceans of green algae than one that watches TV.
Or, like I said, we travel in our own solar system and check here. There is much more life in the universe than intelligent life.
How long ago did Humans discover fire? When do you expect us to stop using it because we are "too advanced" ??
Not all at once, no. Currently, we use fire to heat water that turns turbines and produces electricity. It is inefficient and dirty. It is slowly being replaced by wind, solar and nuclear. So, eventually, we won't use fire to generate electricity. We currently use fire to drive the internal combustion engine. Eventually, we'll all have electric cars (or something) that doesn't use fire to make it go. Many years ago, we used fire to heat our homes. Many homes today use electric heat. GWBush's house uses geothermal heat to heat and cool his house.
So yeah, eventually fire will be replaced, one use at a time, and be seen and a naturally occurring menace.
So I think radio is appropriate, besides which we don't know what else to look for.
That is the key. We don't know what else to listen with. So, I agree with you and say we keep listening, but branch out. Spread it around some and not put all your eggs in one radio.
So, because air travel has gotten cheap, do you send your flowers and groceries by air? No. You use local delivery for local objects, and place the orders electronically. Wasting energy on transporting unnecessary mass when all you really need to send is information is almost always foolish, and radio is relatively cheap, and detection relatively easy.
Why don't we use carrier pigeon or messenger to deliver messages? It was cheap, really easy and good enough. Because radio is better. It's faster, more robust and cheaper. What will happen to radio when we master something new. Now, I'm not physicist, but let's say quantum entanglement turns out to be instantaneous on both ends. You take two atoms, entangle them (somehow), and any changes made to one changes the other instantly, regardless of distance. (Again, I don't know if this is how it works, but play along). Wouldn't that be better than radio, even for relatively short distances? Imagine communication around the world without that annoying 3-5 second delay. Imagine literally unlimited network bandwidth and range, all wireless. Do you think we'd still use radio?
Now, again, I failed super-duper string theory so take it for what it's worth. But before you tell me a system like this is not possible, what would you have thought if 200 years ago I had told you that we'd have nearly instant communication between anywhere two points on earth? How far fetched would that have seemed. How far fetched does a successor to radio sound today?
So how to look, then? Well that's not my job. Look for stellar scale engineering or something, or wait for *them* to find *us.* And hope that any civilization advanced enough for starflight doesn't care for wars of aggression?
I got a B in Sociology, so take this for what it's worth.
I would think that a society that has figured out how to travel faster than light would no longer have wars. I don't think that because of any hippie-free-love idea that they are too smart or evolved for war so they wouldn't have it (it's their way of saying, "we have war so we are dumb and unevolved"). I feel that way because of the technology just to get the energy, not to mention the know-how needed for interstellar travel would be ample to destroy themselves many times over. If they were conquering, war-like people, they wouldn't have made it this far.
First, don't misread my post and think that I am some sort of PETA-freak vegan. I love a good rib-eye as much as anyone. The Atkins diet ROX!
What's to stop a sufficiently advanced civilization, outside of biochemical compatibility, from viewing us as "the other white meat" with fava beans and a nice chianti.
I would hope that a civilization that is able to travel faster than light, that is possibly thousands to millions of years ahead of us, has grown beyond the need to eat other living things. I would assume that a species that advanced would have figured out how to make nutrition from pure energy and have it beamed directly into their green blood stream or something.
That single part question requires a multipart answer.
First, SETI is extremely worth it, without a doubt. It seeks to answer the biggest question in history, "Are we alone?" While SETI will never prove that ET life does NOT exist, it might prove that it does. That will be the largest discovery in the history of man... BY FAR!
However, that said, we could be talking about civilizations that are millions of years ahead of us. Think about that, one million years. How far have we come in a million years? Do you think that if primate-pre-man were looking for us a million years ago, he'd know to look for radio waves? Of course not! Hell, we didn't know about radio a mere 200 years ago. So, do you really think that a civilization that advanced uses radio? I'm going to guess that they don't. I'm sure they would have perfected something else by now. Something like quantum entanglement or something (has anyone clocked the speed on that?) that we would never think to look for. Well, not for another several hundred thousand years anyway.
So, I think SETI is wasting their time looking for radio waves. Not only is a long shot to find ET life, but multiply that by finding ET life that happened to be using radio at a time that matches how far they are away (if they are 1000 light years away, they would have had to be using radio 1000 years ago). If such a civilization is 950 years ahead of us, we still would not be able to detect them. (That's still a long time in technical evolutionary terms. Think of where we were around 1050!)
First I think that SETI should broaden the search. They should be the Search for Extra Terrestrial Life... or SETL (pronounced Settle... fitting isn't it?) I feel that SETI's money could be better spent looking for any life at all, not just intelligent life. Once that is found, branch out and look for the smart stuff. They could start by looking for planets that could support life, starting right here in our own solar system. I want to see a mission to Europa and Titan that look for signs of microbial life. Europa's ice is supposed to be churning. Could we just look for some that has been churned up to the surface? Why wait for a grand ice burrowing submarine mission that cuts through miles of ice and hopes to find water. Why not put the money toward some kind of mission to land there and look around. Move from there to try to bring back a sample. (Sorry to get OT, but that's just an example.) Yes, I know that SETI is not NASA, but some of that radio renting money could be spent on lobbying and public service campaigns that could do much more that trying to see if a star in Orion is listening to BobFM (more music, less talk!)
My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't [shu.edu] to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.
I think the main rule that you are looking for is efficiency toward the completion of the mission. This is important to military leadership. It simply serves no purpose to take someone from their home in the dead of night, fly them to an "undisclosed" location and torture them for no apparent reason. It is a waste of time and resources. First, you have men risk their lives to raid the guy's house. Next, you use a plane and pay for the fuel to fly this guy to the "undisclosed" location. Then you waste the interrogator's time, and prison resources (food, space, AC... whatever) to hold and "interrogate" this person. Finally, every step of the way, you need armed guards to make sure the guy doesn't run away or hang himself. The fastest way to ruin a military (or spy) career is to waste resources like that. You send 5 guys to be interrogated, waste about 100 hrs of the interrogators time only to find out that these guys are completely innocent, your General is going to hear about it. From there, it rolls back down to you. It is well known in military circles that not only does shit roll downhill, but it gets bigger as it goes.
This is why there are no hard and fast rules about who gets picked up and who doesn't. Well, that and the fact that it would bog down soldiers to have to work their way through a checklist of who is a terrorist and who isn't. "OK, step 15 reads, 'The subject can be taken into custody if he is carrying a weapon.' Well, he had a donkey with a bomb strapped to it. Does that count as a weapon, livestock or farming equipment? Also, do we take him or his donkey? Maybe we should count it as an old-school car bomb."
It's like pornography, they can't really define it, but they know it when they see it.
If FDR fucked up WWII as badly as Bush did the Iraq War, we'd all be speaking German right now. So I think at least some of the blame for the colossal mess lies with Bush.
We lost around 2000 men in a single day during WWII. It was called D-Day. The UK lost 382,600 soldiers in WWII. The US lost over 400,000. We've lost around 3000 soldiers in Iraq over four years. If you just run the numbers, Iraq is one of the greatest military victories in history. It's the spin battle that we've lost.
The fuck? Christians are taught to welcome Armageddon and the end times, and there are Christians who are doing everything they can to bring that about. There's a Christian group that, as we speak, is trying to build some temple that's supposed to happen before Armageddon can happen.
Really? Never heard of them. Is George Bush a member? No. Has GWB stated that the purpose of America is to usher in a post Armageddon Christian World Government? No. So shut the fuck up. There's a bunch of celebrities that think science fiction is a religion. What does that have to with anything? About as much as your example.
Shit, I had to double-quote just to show how fucking pathetic your argument is. Those banners aren't threats. They're just a bunch of fucked up posturing Ahmadinajad does to appeal to his base.
Holy Shit!??! What the fuck does he have to do? I mean, if "death to America" is not a threat, the WTF is? What would he have to do in your eyes to be considered a threat? Kidnap Americans from their embassy? Attack our ally's navies on the high seas and kidnap their sailors? Provide arms to the enemies that want to destroy Israel? Provide arms and training to our enemies? Oh wait, they did all of that. Seriously, what the hell does this guy have to do to be taken seriously?
Ahmadinajad can't do *shit* to us. Even if left completely free to make all the bombs and missiles he wants and given 50 years to do so, he *still* wouldn't be able to do shit to us.
As I stated, he has killed Americans in Iraq and bombed a US Marines in Lebanon. You refuted that by bringing up George Bush (which I'll get to in a minute). Do you deny that Iran is actively killing Americans? Do you deny that attacking Americans is an act of war? Again, WTF does this guy have to do?
No. Please do get started. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions? What actions are you talking about, exactly?
I was hoping that I would not have to hold your hand through this but... google "Iranian made ied" for your answers. However, if you really don't know the basics, you shouldn't be trying to participate in an advanced discussion like this. You are in way over your head if you don't know about Iranians training and supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq. Then there were the Iranians actually captured in Iraq... but that is in the next class. You need to pass the pre-req's first.
If you *really* want to go down this road, how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of the Bush administration's actions?
That's like blaming all the deaths in WWII on Roosevelt or all the lives lost in the Revolutionary war on Washington. Please try to make a coherent argument. While we are trying to speak for the soldiers in Iraq, let me stop you there. I've been there. I've talked with the people there. I've seen the severed limbs and gouged eyes. Don't for one second try to tell me that those soldiers are over there because of GWB. They are all volunteers. Any of them can leave at any given moment. All they have to do is ask. If they are denied, they can try to kiss their same sex commanding officer. Instant out. Those men and women in Iraq are fighting to bring freedom to people who have never known it. You see, when you meet these people, you realize that Americans aren't special. What had I done to earn my freedom? Nothing! What can I do now to earn my freedom? Nothing, it was given to me by birth. We are the rich kids born into the luxury of freedom. They are the poor that wonder every day if it is going to be their last. They wonder if they are going to be shot because some Baath party member thought that their 10-year-old little girl is hot. Or maybe today they'll get accused of being "counter-revolutionary" and drown in a pool, only to be taken out and revived to be thrown in again. You have no idea what these people went through. To say they don't a chance because... why? They are brown? They were not born
It never ceases to amaze me that the USA (speaking as your northern neighbor) could possibly see states like Iran or North Korea or, even more laughable, Iraq, as a possible threat to the USA.
Probably not, but it is possible. They are a threat to many of our allies, however. Of course, I'm sure you'd like to see America abandon it's allies world wide. You probably wouldn't feel that way if Canada were located somewhere between Israel and Iran though. But then again, why should you worry about any place you need to take a boat to get to. Those people are brown and don't matter, right?
Iran's president and political structure is not like in the U.S. Ahmadinejad cannot declare or manage wars. He is not the "Commander in Chief" and his fingers are nowhere near the scary red button.
You are correct. The one in charge of Iran and in charge of it's military is the Islamic Suprememe Leader of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Really? What then would you call the illegal invasion of Iraq that our radical Christian government has had us involved in for the past 5 years? Just because they wrap it in the flag of patriotism doesn't change the contents.
Illegal invasion? You mean the one that overwhelmingly authorized and paid for by congress multiple times to make sure that it was 100% LEGAL? Is there some other invasion that I'm not aware of? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal.
Radical Christian Government? See the first 10 words in The Bill or Rights. Here, let me read it to you
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That means that even though our government is has Christians in it, doesn't mean that it is a Christian government. And being Christian is guaranteed by the next few words,...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Get your facts straight. The shit you make up will seem more believable.
The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish.
Really? Link? Do you just make this shit up as you go along? Here's proof that you are either retarded-gold-fish stupid or a liar. WE ARE STILL HERE The US has had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world since 1946. And yet, we are still here. No Armageddon. That should be all the proof you need.
Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion.
Again, not just wrong, but fucking wrong. How about if I showed you a picture of Ahmadinajad watching a military parade with banners that read "Death to America".
Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war.
My god, I'm sick of that argument. Everyone we don't like but have no excuse to bully is called nuts. Kim Jong-il is craaazy cause he's... wait, why again? Cause he's short and wears sunglasses? Man, that guy's nuts! Obviously he can't be trusted to have nukes like we can!
OMFG! You are the epitome of moon bat. You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well. They have no food and no power because the bulk of their economy goes towards their military. And you sit there and defend their leadership... wait, why again? Because he's not America. Because he's afraid we are going to attack? The Korean cease fire has been in effect for about 50 years! Korea could be united tomorrow and the population could eat and heat their homes. It's not because Kim Jong Il likes the power... and you defend him... wait, why again?
Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one.
And Bush believes in the rapture. What's your point? We're rating superstitious beliefs now?
Yeah, but Bush is not trying to rush it!
Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
Gee! I don't know which is worse. Wiped off the map or wiped out so bad that the that it goes back in time and erases them from history! I also noted that translation in my original post.
Thank you for diagnosing an entire country. I'm sure your pioneering work will receive the acclaim it deserves.
You are correct. The entire country doesn't agree. But their fingers won't be on the button, Ahmadinejad's will.
No, you just need to clean the shit out of your ears.
Still not clear enough for you? How about this one?
"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi." If I have shit in my ears and I can still hear what he is saying, then the fact that you can't tells me you don't have shit in your ears, but between them.
Um... I don't see neocons or radical Christians beheading people on YouTube while chanting "God is Great". I don't care what the film says, the comparison is not a valid one.
Sorry, but I've been down this road before, and I didn't really buy it the first time. Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters, but the only way I'll believe it coming from this administration is if they take me personally on a tour of Iran and show them to me. That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.
OK, so you don't trust the US administration when it comes to Arab countries and WMD's. That's completely understandable. Would you believe the leader of that Arab country? Look here.
Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.
Again, I understand. Don't listen to the Bush administration and you still have all the solid evidence you need. May I also suggest that you read up on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plans for the 12th Imam. Now keep in mind that the 12'th Imam will only return after Armageddon. Here is how Ahmadinejad sees Iran's role:
"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country. This ain't Iraq. I was for the war in Iraq, and I still am. I've met those people and understand why we are there. But this is something much different. Our intel is not coming from Iranian defectors with an ax to grind. It is coming from Ahmadinejad himself. If I could go back in time and stop us from going into Iraq, I would do it in a heart beat. I would do so because it has caused us to pause when it comes to Iran and that is much more dangerous than Iraq ever would be.
To claim that Iran will use their nukes against the US (or its allies) is to assume that they are collectively suicidal. This assumption seems rather far-fetched to me, and a lousy basis for a foreign policy.
Hitler spelled out his intentions in Mein Kamph, but no one believed it until it actually happened. Ahmadinejad has done the same, except he didn't actually write it in a book. Google ahmadinejad 12th Imam to get an idea about what is going on over there. I'll give you a brief rundown. Ahmadinejad would like to see the second coming of the 12th Imam. It's like the second coming of Christ for Muslims and is said to usher in a era of Muslim world domination. They think that the 12th Imam's second coming will be after an Armageddon type event, so they welcome the idea. It's a good thing in their minds.
May I also suggest you look up his speech where he says that Israel should be wiped off the map (or "erased from history" depending on the translation).
So yeah, Iran really is suicidal and the idea is not that far fetched at all if you take the time to educate yourself. Allow me to quote Ahmadinejad when he spoke to the UN:
"From the beginning of time, humanity has longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being [12th Imam] who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace." I think he spells it out pretty clearly.
Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.
But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?
Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.
Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.
This thing didn't stand a chance in the House either. It was sent to committee to keep it from being debated on the House floor. Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Karl Marx and people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees.
This would not only been counter productive in that regard, but it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time.
There is no need for any TSA. Nor is there a need for the government to know what a law abiding person goes. Simply government shouldn't be controlling who gets on a plane.
And here is the rub. You are saying that the government has no business in airport/airline security, which is exactly what TSA does. Sorry, but about 99% of Americans will disagree with you on that one. I'm curious, what should the government do? If they shouldn't run security at the airports, how about security on the streets? Do you disagree with traffic cops? How about security at nuclear plants, your house, or you place of work? Sorry to say it, but by securing the tons of jet-fuel carrying metal flying over our heads every day, they are helping to secure those places.
As for the government not needing to know where a law abiding citizen goes, you are correct. I have to ask though, how does the government know that the citizen in question is law abiding if they don't even know who the citizen is? Besides, the government doesn't give a shit where you go, just how you get there. There is no federal ID required before you board your car!
Since you didn't read beyond my first point, let me quote myself:
Not necessarily. This is a tool to aid, not replace. Do chalk boards keep teachers from talking? Do books keep teachers from teaching? Why would RFID tags make teachers stop seeing students?
Our computers are not involved in life or death situations (at least mine's not) but kids in a burning building is life or death and if RFID tags do go wrong it could be curtains.
I don't think you understand. A kid wearing a RFID tag that works even 50% of the time means that he stands a 50% better chance of being found than a kid with no tag at all. Why is that so hard to understand?
Tags will be used by lazy teachers more interested in their next coffee breeak rather than the welfare of the children in their care. (A childs welfare involves a lot more than knowing where they are, and this system will be used as a replacement for caring for the children).
Not necessarily. This is a tool to aid, not replace. Do chalk boards keep teachers from talking? Do books keep teachers from teaching? Why would RFID tags make teachers stop seeing students?
Airport employees don't need to track me, they don't need to know anything. Now the airline employee that I get the ticket from needs to know I can pay for it as well as checkin baggage but that's it. If the airline wants to require IDs I have no problem with either as long as they keep it private and don't share it with the government. My problem is the government requiring ID. I was born in the Land Of The Free not the Soviet Union where you had to carry your internal passport and show it to whoever asked for it.
True, airport employees do not need to track you. They do not need to know exactly where you are. What they do need to know is exactly where you are not. They need to make sure that you are not wandering around the maintenance areas. They need to make sure you are on your plane, etc. Of course, that's not what we are talking about here, so it really doesn't matter.
Airport employees need to know who you are, or more importantly, who you aren't. TSA has certain people that they do not want flying. Quite frankly, I trust their judgment on this one, or at least I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and go toward the side of caution, especially when I'm one of the other passengers on the plane! If you don't like it, drive, take the bus, walk, swim, go Amway, hitch hike... I don't give a shit how you get to where you want to go, but if you are sitting next to me on the plane, that flight attendant better be damn sure you are who you say you are. And if you refused to give your ID, I hope they went over you with a fine tooth comb (inside and out!) before you letting you on the plane. Flying is not a right.
I know you think that all this security at airports is inconvenient for you and all, but tough shit. The rest of us passengers don't mind getting there an extra thirty minutes early as long as we think that we are a bit safer in the air. Sorry bub, but majority rules in this case. Your right to not be offended and roam the airport peace-lovingly-naked and anonymous does not outweigh the right to life that everyone else on the plane and working in tall buildings enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ. The greatest discovery would be: do WE exist?
If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to ask. Descartes already answered that one about 350 years before you were born.
How would you detect an amoeba 1000 light years away?
The same way you detect an intelligent civilization that does NOT use radio. You literally look for them. What if you took... I don't know, say 50% of the resources that SETI uses and invest that into planet finding telescopes. Eventually, provided more discoveries lead to more funding, we will be able to actually SEE planets from other solar systems. We can see the signs of life on earth from space. Given the technology, why couldn't we see if life exists elsewhere. I think we have a much better chance at finding a planet with oceans of green algae than one that watches TV.
Or, like I said, we travel in our own solar system and check here. There is much more life in the universe than intelligent life.
How long ago did Humans discover fire? When do you expect us to stop using it because we are "too advanced" ??
Not all at once, no. Currently, we use fire to heat water that turns turbines and produces electricity. It is inefficient and dirty. It is slowly being replaced by wind, solar and nuclear. So, eventually, we won't use fire to generate electricity.
We currently use fire to drive the internal combustion engine. Eventually, we'll all have electric cars (or something) that doesn't use fire to make it go.
Many years ago, we used fire to heat our homes. Many homes today use electric heat. GWBush's house uses geothermal heat to heat and cool his house.
So yeah, eventually fire will be replaced, one use at a time, and be seen and a naturally occurring menace.
So I think radio is appropriate, besides which we don't know what else to look for.
That is the key. We don't know what else to listen with. So, I agree with you and say we keep listening, but branch out. Spread it around some and not put all your eggs in one radio.
So, because air travel has gotten cheap, do you send your flowers and groceries by air? No. You use local delivery for local objects, and place the orders electronically. Wasting energy on transporting unnecessary mass when all you really need to send is information is almost always foolish, and radio is relatively cheap, and detection relatively easy.
Why don't we use carrier pigeon or messenger to deliver messages? It was cheap, really easy and good enough. Because radio is better. It's faster, more robust and cheaper. What will happen to radio when we master something new. Now, I'm not physicist, but let's say quantum entanglement turns out to be instantaneous on both ends. You take two atoms, entangle them (somehow), and any changes made to one changes the other instantly, regardless of distance. (Again, I don't know if this is how it works, but play along). Wouldn't that be better than radio, even for relatively short distances? Imagine communication around the world without that annoying 3-5 second delay. Imagine literally unlimited network bandwidth and range, all wireless. Do you think we'd still use radio?
Now, again, I failed super-duper string theory so take it for what it's worth. But before you tell me a system like this is not possible, what would you have thought if 200 years ago I had told you that we'd have nearly instant communication between anywhere two points on earth? How far fetched would that have seemed. How far fetched does a successor to radio sound today?
So how to look, then? Well that's not my job. Look for stellar scale engineering or something, or wait for *them* to find *us.* And hope that any civilization advanced enough for starflight doesn't care for wars of aggression?
I got a B in Sociology, so take this for what it's worth.
I would think that a society that has figured out how to travel faster than light would no longer have wars. I don't think that because of any hippie-free-love idea that they are too smart or evolved for war so they wouldn't have it (it's their way of saying, "we have war so we are dumb and unevolved"). I feel that way because of the technology just to get the energy, not to mention the know-how needed for interstellar travel would be ample to destroy themselves many times over. If they were conquering, war-like people, they wouldn't have made it this far.
First, don't misread my post and think that I am some sort of PETA-freak vegan. I love a good rib-eye as much as anyone. The Atkins diet ROX!
What's to stop a sufficiently advanced civilization, outside of biochemical compatibility, from viewing us as "the other white meat" with fava beans and a nice chianti.
I would hope that a civilization that is able to travel faster than light, that is possibly thousands to millions of years ahead of us, has grown beyond the need to eat other living things. I would assume that a species that advanced would have figured out how to make nutrition from pure energy and have it beamed directly into their green blood stream or something.
If I'm wrong, I hope that I'm not very tasty!
Is SETI worth it?
That single part question requires a multipart answer.
First, SETI is extremely worth it, without a doubt. It seeks to answer the biggest question in history, "Are we alone?" While SETI will never prove that ET life does NOT exist, it might prove that it does. That will be the largest discovery in the history of man... BY FAR!
However, that said, we could be talking about civilizations that are millions of years ahead of us. Think about that, one million years. How far have we come in a million years? Do you think that if primate-pre-man were looking for us a million years ago, he'd know to look for radio waves? Of course not! Hell, we didn't know about radio a mere 200 years ago. So, do you really think that a civilization that advanced uses radio? I'm going to guess that they don't. I'm sure they would have perfected something else by now. Something like quantum entanglement or something (has anyone clocked the speed on that?) that we would never think to look for. Well, not for another several hundred thousand years anyway.
So, I think SETI is wasting their time looking for radio waves. Not only is a long shot to find ET life, but multiply that by finding ET life that happened to be using radio at a time that matches how far they are away (if they are 1000 light years away, they would have had to be using radio 1000 years ago). If such a civilization is 950 years ahead of us, we still would not be able to detect them. (That's still a long time in technical evolutionary terms. Think of where we were around 1050!)
First I think that SETI should broaden the search. They should be the Search for Extra Terrestrial Life... or SETL (pronounced Settle... fitting isn't it?) I feel that SETI's money could be better spent looking for any life at all, not just intelligent life. Once that is found, branch out and look for the smart stuff. They could start by looking for planets that could support life, starting right here in our own solar system. I want to see a mission to Europa and Titan that look for signs of microbial life. Europa's ice is supposed to be churning. Could we just look for some that has been churned up to the surface? Why wait for a grand ice burrowing submarine mission that cuts through miles of ice and hopes to find water. Why not put the money toward some kind of mission to land there and look around. Move from there to try to bring back a sample. (Sorry to get OT, but that's just an example.) Yes, I know that SETI is not NASA, but some of that radio renting money could be spent on lobbying and public service campaigns that could do much more that trying to see if a star in Orion is listening to BobFM (more music, less talk!)
Well, that's my $0.02, since you asked and all.
My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't [shu.edu] to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.
I think the main rule that you are looking for is efficiency toward the completion of the mission. This is important to military leadership. It simply serves no purpose to take someone from their home in the dead of night, fly them to an "undisclosed" location and torture them for no apparent reason. It is a waste of time and resources. First, you have men risk their lives to raid the guy's house. Next, you use a plane and pay for the fuel to fly this guy to the "undisclosed" location. Then you waste the interrogator's time, and prison resources (food, space, AC... whatever) to hold and "interrogate" this person. Finally, every step of the way, you need armed guards to make sure the guy doesn't run away or hang himself. The fastest way to ruin a military (or spy) career is to waste resources like that. You send 5 guys to be interrogated, waste about 100 hrs of the interrogators time only to find out that these guys are completely innocent, your General is going to hear about it. From there, it rolls back down to you. It is well known in military circles that not only does shit roll downhill, but it gets bigger as it goes.
This is why there are no hard and fast rules about who gets picked up and who doesn't. Well, that and the fact that it would bog down soldiers to have to work their way through a checklist of who is a terrorist and who isn't. "OK, step 15 reads, 'The subject can be taken into custody if he is carrying a weapon.' Well, he had a donkey with a bomb strapped to it. Does that count as a weapon, livestock or farming equipment? Also, do we take him or his donkey? Maybe we should count it as an old-school car bomb."
It's like pornography, they can't really define it, but they know it when they see it.
If FDR fucked up WWII as badly as Bush did the Iraq War, we'd all be speaking German right now.
So I think at least some of the blame for the colossal mess lies with Bush.
We lost around 2000 men in a single day during WWII. It was called D-Day. The UK lost 382,600 soldiers in WWII. The US lost over 400,000. We've lost around 3000 soldiers in Iraq over four years. If you just run the numbers, Iraq is one of the greatest military victories in history. It's the spin battle that we've lost.
Sprechen Sei Deutsch?
The fuck? Christians are taught to welcome Armageddon and the end times, and there are Christians who are doing everything they can to bring that about. There's a Christian group that, as we speak, is trying to build some temple that's supposed to happen before Armageddon can happen.
Really? Never heard of them. Is George Bush a member? No. Has GWB stated that the purpose of America is to usher in a post Armageddon Christian World Government? No. So shut the fuck up. There's a bunch of celebrities that think science fiction is a religion. What does that have to with anything? About as much as your example.
Shit, I had to double-quote just to show how fucking pathetic your argument is. Those banners aren't threats. They're just a bunch of fucked up posturing Ahmadinajad does to appeal to his base.
Holy Shit!??! What the fuck does he have to do? I mean, if "death to America" is not a threat, the WTF is? What would he have to do in your eyes to be considered a threat? Kidnap Americans from their embassy? Attack our ally's navies on the high seas and kidnap their sailors? Provide arms to the enemies that want to destroy Israel? Provide arms and training to our enemies? Oh wait, they did all of that. Seriously, what the hell does this guy have to do to be taken seriously?
Ahmadinajad can't do *shit* to us. Even if left completely free to make all the bombs and missiles he wants and given 50 years to do so, he *still* wouldn't be able to do shit to us.
As I stated, he has killed Americans in Iraq and bombed a US Marines in Lebanon. You refuted that by bringing up George Bush (which I'll get to in a minute). Do you deny that Iran is actively killing Americans? Do you deny that attacking Americans is an act of war? Again, WTF does this guy have to do?
No. Please do get started. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions? What actions are you talking about, exactly?
I was hoping that I would not have to hold your hand through this but... google "Iranian made ied" for your answers. However, if you really don't know the basics, you shouldn't be trying to participate in an advanced discussion like this. You are in way over your head if you don't know about Iranians training and supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq. Then there were the Iranians actually captured in Iraq... but that is in the next class. You need to pass the pre-req's first.
If you *really* want to go down this road, how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of the Bush administration's actions?
That's like blaming all the deaths in WWII on Roosevelt or all the lives lost in the Revolutionary war on Washington. Please try to make a coherent argument.
While we are trying to speak for the soldiers in Iraq, let me stop you there. I've been there. I've talked with the people there. I've seen the severed limbs and gouged eyes. Don't for one second try to tell me that those soldiers are over there because of GWB. They are all volunteers. Any of them can leave at any given moment. All they have to do is ask. If they are denied, they can try to kiss their same sex commanding officer. Instant out. Those men and women in Iraq are fighting to bring freedom to people who have never known it. You see, when you meet these people, you realize that Americans aren't special. What had I done to earn my freedom? Nothing! What can I do now to earn my freedom? Nothing, it was given to me by birth. We are the rich kids born into the luxury of freedom. They are the poor that wonder every day if it is going to be their last. They wonder if they are going to be shot because some Baath party member thought that their 10-year-old little girl is hot. Or maybe today they'll get accused of being "counter-revolutionary" and drown in a pool, only to be taken out and revived to be thrown in again. You have no idea what these people went through. To say they don't a chance because... why? They are brown? They were not born
It never ceases to amaze me that the USA (speaking as your northern neighbor) could possibly see states like Iran or North Korea or, even more laughable, Iraq, as a possible threat to the USA.
Probably not, but it is possible. They are a threat to many of our allies, however. Of course, I'm sure you'd like to see America abandon it's allies world wide. You probably wouldn't feel that way if Canada were located somewhere between Israel and Iran though. But then again, why should you worry about any place you need to take a boat to get to. Those people are brown and don't matter, right?
Iran's president and political structure is not like in the U.S. Ahmadinejad cannot declare or manage wars. He is not the "Commander in Chief" and his fingers are nowhere near the scary red button.
You are correct. The one in charge of Iran and in charge of it's military is the Islamic Suprememe Leader of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Yeah, that makes me feel so much better.
Illegal invasion? You mean the one that overwhelmingly authorized and paid for by congress multiple times to make sure that it was 100% LEGAL? Is there some other invasion that I'm not aware of? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal.
Radical Christian Government? See the first 10 words in The Bill or Rights. Here, let me read it to you Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... That means that even though our government is has Christians in it, doesn't mean that it is a Christian government. And being Christian is guaranteed by the next few words,
Get your facts straight. The shit you make up will seem more believable.
The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish.
Really? Link? Do you just make this shit up as you go along? Here's proof that you are either retarded-gold-fish stupid or a liar. WE ARE STILL HERE The US has had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world since 1946. And yet, we are still here. No Armageddon. That should be all the proof you need.
Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion.
Again, not just wrong, but fucking wrong. How about if I showed you a picture of Ahmadinajad watching a military parade with banners that read "Death to America".
Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war.
My god, I'm sick of that argument. Everyone we don't like but have no excuse to bully is called nuts. Kim Jong-il is craaazy cause he's... wait, why again? Cause he's short and wears sunglasses? Man, that guy's nuts! Obviously he can't be trusted to have nukes like we can!
OMFG! You are the epitome of moon bat. You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well. They have no food and no power because the bulk of their economy goes towards their military. And you sit there and defend their leadership... wait, why again? Because he's not America. Because he's afraid we are going to attack? The Korean cease fire has been in effect for about 50 years! Korea could be united tomorrow and the population could eat and heat their homes. It's not because Kim Jong Il likes the power... and you defend him... wait, why again?
Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one.
Yeah, but Bush is not trying to rush it!
Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
Gee! I don't know which is worse. Wiped off the map or wiped out so bad that the that it goes back in time and erases them from history! I also noted that translation in my original post.
Thank you for diagnosing an entire country. I'm sure your pioneering work will receive the acclaim it deserves.
You are correct. The entire country doesn't agree. But their fingers won't be on the button, Ahmadinejad's will.
No, you just need to clean the shit out of your ears.
Still not clear enough for you? How about this one? "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi." If I have shit in my ears and I can still hear what he is saying, then the fact that you can't tells me you don't have shit in your ears, but between them.
Um... I don't see neocons or radical Christians beheading people on YouTube while chanting "God is Great". I don't care what the film says, the comparison is not a valid one.
OK, so you don't trust the US administration when it comes to Arab countries and WMD's. That's completely understandable. Would you believe the leader of that Arab country? Look here.
Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.
Again, I understand. Don't listen to the Bush administration and you still have all the solid evidence you need. May I also suggest that you read up on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plans for the 12th Imam. Now keep in mind that the 12'th Imam will only return after Armageddon. Here is how Ahmadinejad sees Iran's role: "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country. This ain't Iraq. I was for the war in Iraq, and I still am. I've met those people and understand why we are there. But this is something much different. Our intel is not coming from Iranian defectors with an ax to grind. It is coming from Ahmadinejad himself. If I could go back in time and stop us from going into Iraq, I would do it in a heart beat. I would do so because it has caused us to pause when it comes to Iran and that is much more dangerous than Iraq ever would be.
Hitler spelled out his intentions in Mein Kamph, but no one believed it until it actually happened. Ahmadinejad has done the same, except he didn't actually write it in a book. Google ahmadinejad 12th Imam to get an idea about what is going on over there. I'll give you a brief rundown. Ahmadinejad would like to see the second coming of the 12th Imam. It's like the second coming of Christ for Muslims and is said to usher in a era of Muslim world domination. They think that the 12th Imam's second coming will be after an Armageddon type event, so they welcome the idea. It's a good thing in their minds.
May I also suggest you look up his speech where he says that Israel should be wiped off the map (or "erased from history" depending on the translation).
So yeah, Iran really is suicidal and the idea is not that far fetched at all if you take the time to educate yourself. Allow me to quote Ahmadinejad when he spoke to the UN: "From the beginning of time, humanity has longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being [12th Imam] who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace." I think he spells it out pretty clearly.
Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.
But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?
Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.
Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.
This thing didn't stand a chance in the House either. It was sent to committee to keep it from being debated on the House floor. Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Karl Marx and people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees.
This would not only been counter productive in that regard, but it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time.
There is no need for any TSA. Nor is there a need for the government to know what a law abiding person goes. Simply government shouldn't be controlling who gets on a plane.
And here is the rub. You are saying that the government has no business in airport/airline security, which is exactly what TSA does. Sorry, but about 99% of Americans will disagree with you on that one. I'm curious, what should the government do? If they shouldn't run security at the airports, how about security on the streets? Do you disagree with traffic cops? How about security at nuclear plants, your house, or you place of work? Sorry to say it, but by securing the tons of jet-fuel carrying metal flying over our heads every day, they are helping to secure those places.
As for the government not needing to know where a law abiding citizen goes, you are correct. I have to ask though, how does the government know that the citizen in question is law abiding if they don't even know who the citizen is? Besides, the government doesn't give a shit where you go, just how you get there. There is no federal ID required before you board your car!
Our computers are not involved in life or death situations (at least mine's not) but kids in a burning building is life or death and if RFID tags do go wrong it could be curtains.
I don't think you understand. A kid wearing a RFID tag that works even 50% of the time means that he stands a 50% better chance of being found than a kid with no tag at all. Why is that so hard to understand?
Tags will be used by lazy teachers more interested in their next coffee breeak rather than the welfare of the children in their care. (A childs welfare involves a lot more than knowing where they are, and this system will be used as a replacement for caring for the children).
Not necessarily. This is a tool to aid, not replace. Do chalk boards keep teachers from talking? Do books keep teachers from teaching? Why would RFID tags make teachers stop seeing students?
Airport employees don't need to track me, they don't need to know anything. Now the airline employee that I get the ticket from needs to know I can pay for it as well as checkin baggage but that's it. If the airline wants to require IDs I have no problem with either as long as they keep it private and don't share it with the government. My problem is the government requiring ID. I was born in the Land Of The Free not the Soviet Union where you had to carry your internal passport and show it to whoever asked for it.
True, airport employees do not need to track you. They do not need to know exactly where you are. What they do need to know is exactly where you are not. They need to make sure that you are not wandering around the maintenance areas. They need to make sure you are on your plane, etc. Of course, that's not what we are talking about here, so it really doesn't matter.
Airport employees need to know who you are, or more importantly, who you aren't. TSA has certain people that they do not want flying. Quite frankly, I trust their judgment on this one, or at least I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt and go toward the side of caution, especially when I'm one of the other passengers on the plane! If you don't like it, drive, take the bus, walk, swim, go Amway, hitch hike... I don't give a shit how you get to where you want to go, but if you are sitting next to me on the plane, that flight attendant better be damn sure you are who you say you are. And if you refused to give your ID, I hope they went over you with a fine tooth comb (inside and out!) before you letting you on the plane. Flying is not a right.
I know you think that all this security at airports is inconvenient for you and all, but tough shit. The rest of us passengers don't mind getting there an extra thirty minutes early as long as we think that we are a bit safer in the air. Sorry bub, but majority rules in this case. Your right to not be offended and roam the airport peace-lovingly-naked and anonymous does not outweigh the right to life that everyone else on the plane and working in tall buildings enjoy.