intelligent life in universe

On 16 Nov., 11:18, wrote:

Proxy wars have nothing to do with bribery, and they probably
prevented the Cold War from turning into World War III, although it
can be argued that the CW was WW III.

WWX is probably just starting. Knee jerk support for the lunacy of
Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is not a good sign at all. Would
any other country on the planet tolerate such an open declaration of
war? The Arab Spring increasingly looks like an Islamic fundamentalist
plot to grab some real global power. (Other than oil) Bung a bunch of
wannabe-Irans into one very troubled geographical area and the result
cannot possibly be beneficial to mankind's future progress.

How do we round up every potential Muslim believer and sympathiser
back here at what we like to call home? Do we try to do like the US
did with their Japanese residents in WW2? Has anyone actually looked
at the sheer scale of such a task? What price open immigration then?
Win, or lose the argument, I think our imagined freedoms might just
take a massive lurch backwards in the very near future.

There is no arguing with the screaming insanity of religious belief.
For proof we need look no further than the religious block vote for
Mutt Rumboy. Had Hitler been standing on the rostrum and dropping a
few hints on his religious beliefs they would still have voted the
same way. Programmed religi-bots to a fault.

On Nov 16, 12:05*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 16 Nov., 11:18, wrote:



Proxy wars have nothing to do with bribery, and they probably
prevented the Cold War from turning into World War III, although it
can be argued that the CW was WW III.

WWX is probably just starting. Knee jerk support for the lunacy of
Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is not a good sign at all. Would
any other country on the planet tolerate such an open declaration of
war? The Arab Spring increasingly looks like an Islamic fundamentalist
plot to grab some real global power. (Other than oil) Bung a bunch of
wannabe-Irans into one very troubled geographical area and the result
cannot possibly be beneficial to mankind's future progress.

How do we round up every potential Muslim believer and sympathiser
back here at what we like to call home? Do we try to do like the US
did with their Japanese residents in WW2?

It was FDR who ordered that, not the American people. FDR and
Mussolini had good things to say about each other before the war. FDR
was not a Republican BTW.

Has anyone actually looked
at the sheer scale of such a task? What price open immigration then?
Win, or lose the argument, I think our imagined freedoms might just
take a massive lurch backwards in the very near future.

There is no arguing with the screaming insanity of religious belief.
For proof we need look no further than the religious block vote for
Mutt Rumboy.

Apparently the thumpers sat out the election.

Had Hitler been standing on the rostrum and dropping a
few hints on his religious beliefs they would still have voted the
same way.

You're comparing Romney to Hitler? Are you serious? Remember, Hitler
and Mussolini got along, and FDR and Mussolini got along. FDR was a
Democrat.

Programmed religi-bots to a fault.

They would still be yards better than the 0bamatons.

On 17 Nov., 02:46, whensenseless scribbled furiously:

You're comparing Romney to Hitler? *Are you serious?

No. Only you made that comparison. Though I'd be quite prepared to
draw some parallels on the subject of a deranged, predatory,
psychopathic hypocrite let loose in/on society without proper
medication. Being a Christian and a Weplublican are mutually
exclusive. It's like claiming to be a Christian _and_ a Catholic
priest. While also being a predatory, paedophile child rapist,
torturer and serial robber of poor simpletons as part of a pyramid
sales, insurance scam for immortality in the afterlife. It's a matter
of morals and standards being applied to all regardless of the fancy
name they apply to their collective insanity. Mormon? Moron? Whatever.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: I was actually talking about the
religobots auto-reflex choice of any mollusc presented to them for
auto-adoration as a superior being to their lowly, grovelling status.
Provided, only, that he drops a few carefully coded clues to appeal to
their own chronic mental affliction as they swim constantly upstream
through their sticky religi-ooze in search of any leader in a storm.

Is that enough words to qualify as a proper sentence, or three? Do say
if it isn't. I may have caught Squirrel's disease. Putting all your
nuts on display in one go, without a pause for breath, is a sure sign
of lunacy in my compendium of assorted loose screws and cross-threaded
fasteners. Ring any bells, with you, sport? Thought not. :ø)

On Nov 17, 3:20*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 17 Nov., 02:46, whensenseless scribbled furiously:



You're comparing Romney to Hitler? *Are you serious?

No. Only you made that comparison.

I never did... I asked if you were.

You wrote:
"There is no arguing with the screaming insanity of religious belief.
For proof we need look no further than the religious block vote for
Mutt Rumboy. Had Hitler been standing on the rostrum and dropping a
few hints on his religious beliefs they would still have voted the
same way."

The inference one might draw is that you think Romney and Hitler are
similar, as far as some voters are concerned. And yet, ironically,
only liberal (socialist) voters might ever confuse the two.

On 17 Nov., 13:33, wrote:

ø

Pointless repetition of a failed argument does not improve your
argument. Nor mine.

May your delusions give you comfort as the sky finally falls on s.a.a.
As it inevitably must.

I am just going outside and may be some time.

On Nov 17, 5:10*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 17 Nov., 13:33, wrote:



ø

Pointless repetition of a failed argument does not improve your
argument. Nor mine.

May your delusions give you comfort as the sky finally falls on s.a.a.
As it inevitably must.

I am just going outside and may be some time.

If you are going to make a comparison between Romney and a vile
socialist dictator who killed tens of millions of innocent men, women
and children, you had better **** well be ready to back it up.

On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 02:32:10 UTC+5:30, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/11/2012 20:16, Mike Collins wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/11/2012 01:46, Davoud wrote:

Davoud:

I digress. I don't care how much private money is spent on SETI, but I

don't want my tax dollars spent on the search. I'm of the opinion that

the odds of success are vanishingly small...



Srinivas Bhatt:

the chances of getting a signal are not really bleak, we are slow yet!

Intelligent life should not worry us but crooked life elsewhere in the

universe, as we have enough of it right here!



And we're going to get slower. SETI has funding problems because a lot

of people think that it's a fool's errand, and in hard times, fool's

errands are quickly cut (excepting bogus wars). I happen to think that

if we were to find ET in the radio spectrum it would be an accidental

discovery with one of the sensitive radio telescopes such as ALMA.



There is actually only a fairly narrow window where an civilisation will

be accidentally non-thermal and radio bright. From the point where they

discover radio waves and microwaves using modulated CW up to the point

where they can do spread spectrum digital signal processing.



Once they have that technology they are pretty much invisible at a

distance. Up until then you get nice handy clues in the scan lines.



I don't object too much to the SETI guys looking at data that comes off

other large radiotelescopes in the hope of finding something, but I think

the odds against them make it a fools errand.





The odds against finding signals may be high but positive results would be

so momentous that it's worth trying.



I think I would prefer that we found more basic life first.



SETI. Doesn't cost much but the potential benefits make it worth trying.



That is actually debatable. Every instance on Earth where an advanced

technological civilisation has encountered a more primitive one sat on

fertile land has been totally disastrous for the encumbents.



Quite likely that if they eventually do come centuries from now they

will find us stuck without usable fossil fuels in some post apocalyptic

Mad Max scenario much like Cook found the wretched Easter Islanders

without any decent sized trees to make boats.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/f...er-island.html



Different technology same myopic approach to managing resources.

Some things don't change.



--

Regards,

Martin Brown

Thanks MB, PBS is a great website!

On Nov 13, 4:14*pm, wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:08*am, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 11, 6:19*am, wrote:

On Nov 11, 3:13*am, "Chris.B" wrote:

Den lørdag den 10. november 2012 whensenseless opined:

collectivism will destroy us long before we run out of resources.

You wouldn't accept that a measure of human intelligence is the caring for the fallen and wounded to ensure a cohesive, constructive society?

That isn't collectivism, that's just helping someone who is injured.

It cannot be avoided: Society always pays for the poor in one way or another.

How so?

You can support the poor with decent housing and an adequate (though not excessive) income.

The problem is that some people already work and earn the amounts
which you might want to GIVE to the poor. *Then where is the incentive
to work?

Most importantly: There must be a fair rate of pay for employment.

That is to be determined by the free market. *I don't want to pay
someone $30 a week to mow my lawn, so I mow it myself. *If someone
were willing to mow for $1 a week maybe I might consider it, or maybe
not. You tell me what would be fair.

To allow those who do work to lift themselves out of the social security system.

You need to learn to write in complete sentences. *Every sentence
should have a subject and a verb.

Crime is low, taxes are high and society is well ordered and largely self-disciplined. Most people feel some connection to society because everybody benefits in some way. The Scandinavian model respects others and is respected.

In the US and elsewhere, there are too many people willing to abuse
such a system.

Or: You make a deliberate choice not to adequately support the poor.. Poverty is rife. As is crime. The state employs a vast band-aid system to control a permanently broken society. A massive police state exists to monitor, control and punish society as a whole for its own wrongdoings. A divided society. For whom the majority have no real stake in its continuation. Not without change.

Again, the problem will be that those who already work to support
themselves, will tend to lose the incentive to work, if you just give
handouts to the poor.

The cost, compared with adequate social support, is astronomical. Worse: It can only continue to grow to match ever increasing inequality. Worse still; it cannot possibly eradicate crime! A society riddled with crime is extraordinarily
inefficient. Security, insurance, extra supervision against pilfering, backhanders, protection money, corruption and
hidden costs mean increased prices for literally everything. Further exacerbating inequality and poverty. It is a vicious
circle. One which is impossible to break once established.

So your plan is to bribe people into behaving? * Did your parents
bribe you into cleaning up your room?

remaining tripe deleted

Bribing and rewarding, or call it extortion with benefits, works very
good if the outcome is mutually desirable.

The outcome is not mutually desirable.

Exactly true, if proxy wars are the desired outcome, then by all means
WW3 should be the only outcome.

On Nov 16, 2:18*am, wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:29*am, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 13, 4:14*pm, wrote:

On Nov 12, 10:08*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:19*am, wrote:

On Nov 11, 3:13*am, "Chris.B" wrote:

Den lørdag den 10. november 2012 whensenseless opined:

collectivism will destroy us long before we run out of resources.

You wouldn't accept that a measure of human intelligence is the caring for the fallen and wounded to ensure a cohesive, constructive society?

That isn't collectivism, that's just helping someone who is injured.

It cannot be avoided: Society always pays for the poor in one way or another.

How so?

You can support the poor with decent housing and an adequate (though not excessive) income.

The problem is that some people already work and earn the amounts
which you might want to GIVE to the poor. *Then where is the incentive
to work?

Most importantly: There must be a fair rate of pay for employment.

On Nov 4, 6:05*am, Srinivas Bhatt wrote:
Is it better to study formation of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe or is it wiser to study evolution of intelligence of human brain and to arrive at a fair conclusion?

http://crestvideos.com/relevance-of-seti-research/

To study the human brain would represent a huge setback and otherwise
limit the search for other intelligent life that has mastered their
own survival in spite of their cosmic location or that of its
environment which we couldn't biologically adapt ourselves to.

SETI via star flagging or StarShade Shutter (starlight modulator)

ET’s could be a whole lot smarter than we are giving them credit, or
at least smarter than most of our 5th graders:
http://science.time.com/2012/11/28/f...=sci-main-lead
I mean to further suggest, if I wanted to send signals out to most
any other star/solar-system or perhaps to just concentrate on one
specific target out there, and could use a starshade as a rotating
shutter in order to make a star appear to modulate, pulse or even
transmit packets of data, would be quite nifty and relatively energy
efficient.

An on-edge spinning starshade could make most any aligned star as
viewed by our observation seem to quasar/beacon or even laser pulse.
A face-on spinning pinwheel or kaleidoscope wheel as our starshade
could even be programmed to deliver packets of data via the rotating
shutter or optical modulation code. Active alignment with our solar
system and the selected other star shouldn’t be all that difficult or
even all that energy intensive..

The communications could be as simple as a steady beacon or that of a
highly complex binary code packet of data via this kind of easily
deployed remote shutter.

The above topic link: “Flickering Stars: Could Aliens Be Sending Us
Signals?” by Michael D. Lemonick as having interviewed Lucianne
Walkowicz is what made me rethink upon this SETI via interstellar
communications that needs to be nearly as bright as most any point-
source of starlight, and to further consider how to go about
accomplishing this task that perhaps doesn’t have to be nearly as
technically insurmountable as we once thought.

Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146