f.b.m Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Not at all. The only assumption made is that where ever and whatever life is they would use EM to communicate as that's the only long range communication force known to us which we understand to a large degree. That is true but this doesnt seem to stop or widen the hunt for life in 'earth-like' planets instead of just any life form on any planet. What is more annoying is when people use this assumption (that the only stars -> planets -> carbon based life can exist) to peddle their 'If this constant was 0.00000054% more there would be no life in this universe .... it has to be gawd' argument. forgive my intoxication.
Brainfade Posted December 8, 2011 Author Posted December 8, 2011 ..although the question remains CA' date=' why are you done with liberals?[/quote'] Please check your PM. I have no time or desire to respond to the juvenile responses that my post will inevitably elicit.
Ram Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 I think its a bit delusional and self-pompous on our part to assume that we're the only life-forms that exist in this unimaginably huge universe. I hope I am still around to witness a) the inevitable discovery of life-elsewhere or b) the catastrophic invasion of our planet by those beings.
Desi Cartman Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 I think its a bit delusional and self-pompous on our part to assume that we're the only life-forms that exist in this unimaginably huge universe. I hope I am still around to witness a) the inevitable discovery of life-elsewhere or b) the catastrophic invasion of our planet by those beings. if it happens, it'll be so much fun just looking at the people who believe in god.
Brainfade Posted December 8, 2011 Author Posted December 8, 2011 I think its a bit delusional and self-pompous on our part to assume that we're the only life-forms that exist in this unimaginably huge universe. I hope I am still around to witness a) the inevitable discovery of life-elsewhere or b) the catastrophic invasion of our planet by those beings. Why catastrophic invasion? Is peace and collaboration not possible?
Brainfade Posted December 8, 2011 Author Posted December 8, 2011 if it happens' date=' it'll be so much fun just looking at the people who believe in god.[/quote'] Unless, of course, Kepler22bians *are* the gods :-)!
Desi Cartman Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Unless' date=' of course, Kepler22bians *are* the gods :-)![/quote'] There is only one god and his name is Jesus :orderorder: I'm not kidding, i heard a 3 year old preach this on discovery channel
Mariyam Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 contaminating planet earth. I am moving to: KEPLER 22 B http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2101646,00.html#ixzz1frb6fs6W It'll take me 600 years to get there if I traveled at the speed of light, but what the heck ... if I can just hop on that new thingamajig they found to be faster, I'll get there in 500. Wow. This is so cool. Best news of 2011. I presume there is life there. That's what I understood the article to hint at. Do they know we exist? Will be interesting to know about their society, laws, religious practices etc. I'm going to follow this news very carefully from now on. Just to give us science duffers an idea, someone wants to tell us how much is 600 light years? How many light years did it take for the Mericans to reach the moon from the Earth?
Desi Cartman Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Wow. This is so cool. Best news of 2011. I presume there is life there. That's what I understood the article to hint at. Do they know we exist? Will be interesting to know about their society, laws, religious practices etc. I'm going to follow this news very carefully from now on. Just to give us science duffers an idea, someone wants to tell us how much is 600 light years? How many light years did it take for the Mericans to reach the moon from the Earth? A light year is a measure of distance. It is the distance that light travels in one year. 1 light year = 9,460,528,400,000 kilometers = 5,878,499,810,000 miles PS: source wikianswers
Ram Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Why catastrophic invasion? Is peace and collaboration not possible? Highly unlikely, in my opinion. Whatever form that life that exists elsewhere has taken, irrespective of what its anatomical structures are, its moral foundations are almost certain to be completely different. Come to think of it Human morality itself has undergone a sea change of transformation over the last 4-5 centuries. Can you imagine how unique and different the moral guidelines of beings from another planet will be?
Lurker Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 May be he listens too much to his Neo Con talk show host buddies. Any way just when liberals were down with the anouncement from Cain over the weekend that he is going to drop out of the race, we get news that "The Donald" may run for prez as a 3rd party candidate. Thank You cons for keep everyone entertained during the long election season. Last time we had the queen from wasilla and now we may have The Don to keep us laughing. Har ek baat pe kahte ho tum ke tu kya hai Tum hi kah do ke ye andaaz-e-guftagu kya hai? CA is a well rounded guy dude. Dont go after him for no reason.
Lurker Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Please check your PM. I have no time or desire to respond to the juvenile responses that my post will inevitably elicit. Thanks CA. Will send you a response. I am currently having a few vociferous debates at work with people from all sides on the Universal Pension schemes. 401 K in US, Provident Fund in India and so on. They are all different of course but conceptually remain the same, you work and a certain amount of deductions happen, often with contributions with employer, so you can be self-dependent. I beleive this whole 401k/PF thingy notion is obsolete today, and I lay more of the blame on the way free market have run amoke and sank people's savings. Whats your take on it? xxx
ganeshran Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Not at all. The only assumption made is that where ever and whatever life is they would use EM to communicate as that's the only long range communication force known to us which we understand to a large degree. The below post is what I meant by the assumption. We constantly look for planets that are similar to earth's conditions to speculate if life could be present on them. Actual alien species may thrive in conditions completely different to those on earth. That is true but this doesnt seem to stop or widen the hunt for life in 'earth-like' planets instead of just any life form on any planet. What is more annoying is when people use this assumption (that the only stars -> planets -> carbon based life can exist) to peddle their 'If this constant was 0.00000054% more there would be no life in this universe .... it has to be gawd' argument. forgive my intoxication.
cricket_usa Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Har ek baat pe kahte ho tum ke tu kya hai Tum hi kah do ke ye andaaz-e-guftagu kya hai? CA is a well rounded guy dude. Dont go after him for no reason. Can you translate this please? I am a Southie.
Brainfade Posted December 8, 2011 Author Posted December 8, 2011 Thanks CA. Will send you a response. I am currently having a few vociferous debates at work with people from all sides on the Universal Pension schemes. 401 K in US, Provident Fund in India and so on. They are all different of course but conceptually remain the same, you work and a certain amount of deductions happen, often with contributions with employer, so you can be self-dependent. I beleive this whole 401k/PF thingy notion is obsolete today, and I lay more of the blame on the way free market have run amoke and sank people's savings. Whats your take on it? xxx I am not sure in what way the free market is entirely responsible for sinking people's savings. Where does personal responsibility fit in? Unless it is an obviously fraudulent ponzi scheme, shouldn't investors know and take responsibility for inherent risks involved with the stock market? No one forced people to make risky investments. No one complains when the bubble is growing, but as soon as it bursts and the s*** hits the fan, the finger-pointing begins. Individuals and institutions want to partake of the benefits when the going is good, but feel entitled to bail outs when their risky investments tank. Similar thing with housing - no one forced people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Rather, the government instructed the banks to make housing more affordable for people who couldn't afford them. The banks did. People bought. People couldn't pay. The bubble burst. Were there unscrupulous banks doing unscrupulous things? Yes. But, where did it all begin? Government interference gone bad. I have conceded that the derivatives market should have been reined in by the government - that Summers, Greenspan and others let it get out of control. But the point is - they ignored obvious fraud. That is not the same as allowing free markets to work. Once again, reinforcing my view that the government's job is to implement common-sense regulations and protect against obvious fraud. Not to incentivize, interfere and then ignore when things are starting to get out of hand, and finally try to put a band aid on by bailing people out. Like a moth to a flame, I keep coming back to political discussions on ICF :).
Lurker Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 I am not sure in what way the free market is entirely responsible for sinking people's savings. Where does personal responsibility fit in? Unless it is an obviously fraudulent ponzi scheme, shouldn't investors know and take responsibility for inherent risks involved with the stock market? No one forced people to make risky investments. No one complains when the bubble is growing, but as soon as it bursts and the s*** hits the fan, the finger-pointing begins. Individuals and institutions want to partake of the benefits when the going is good, but feel entitled to bail outs when their risky investments tank. Lets talk about this particular point, specifically with an eye on 401 K. Typically when a person in US is employed he has a choice to opt for 401K wherein he puts a certain %age, upto 6% generally, and the employer matches a certain percentage of it. This money is pooled in with a 401K provider, T Rowe Price, for example, who then use it as an investment vehicle. A large portion of US, and possibly world's, runs on the whole 401k contributions. Now when you talk of personal reponsibility how do you expect that in a 401K world? Once you are employed you are locked in with a particular service provider. You dont have a choice really. Secondly, within the service provider you can use only the funds that they have decided is good enough to be deployed. You can not go beyond those two boundaries - the selected service provider & their selected funds. So how is this about personal choice? Like a moth to a flame, I keep coming back to political discussions on ICF :). Thats because you are a glutton for such discourse, admit it :--D
Lurker Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 Can you translate this please? I am a Southie. Poetry is what gets lost in Translation - Robert Frost. Was just saying that CA is a well rounded chap with good viewpoint of conservatism so no reason to hurry to judge him.
fineleg Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 Lets talk about this particular point, specifically with an eye on 401 K. Typically when a person in US is employed he has a choice to opt for 401K wherein he puts a certain %age, upto 6% generally, and the employer matches a certain percentage of it. This money is pooled in with a 401K provider, T Rowe Price, for example, who then use it as an investment vehicle. A large portion of US, and possibly world's, runs on the whole 401k contributions. Now when you talk of personal reponsibility how do you expect that in a 401K world? Once you are employed you are locked in with a particular service provider. You dont have a choice really. Secondly, within the service provider you can use only the funds that they have decided is good enough to be deployed. You can not go beyond those two boundaries - the selected service provider & their selected funds. So how is this about personal choice? Thats because you are a glutton for such discourse, admit it :--D This is correct - sometimes though they will give you a 'brokerage window' - I think that term means you can buy shares in any company similar to open market. Have you seen those?
phaedrus Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 SirJaun ko bhej do wahan B-> he is a big fan of their cricket team
Clarke Posted December 9, 2011 Posted December 9, 2011 You could instead move to Somalia and enjoy its super small govt, absence of gun control and totally free markets :P Edit : BTW when you said contaminating, did you mean in terms of pollutants in our air/water/soil ? That was a liberal conspiracy mate!
Recommended Posts