Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #57611 > unrolled thread

Let's talk about UFOs then

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-24 23:56 +0100
    Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:10 -0800
    Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:12 -0800
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 09:00 +0000
    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 02:06 -0800
    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 15:47 +0000
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:51 +0100
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 17:03 +0000
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 18:22 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 10:03 -0800
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-25 10:48 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 21:33 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:25 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Clark Smith <noaddress@nowhere.net> - 2015-02-25 17:49 +0000
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 14:13 +0100
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:53 +0100
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:58 +0100
    Let's talk about UFOs then Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 14:26 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-25 21:10 -0700
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 22:35 +0000
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 14:46 -0800
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:59 -0800
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:53 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:53 -0800
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:38 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 04:47 -0800
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 12:51 +0000
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:41 +0100
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-26 16:46 +0000
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:16 -0800
      Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 21:54 -0800
        Let's talk about UFOs then mt <mahdert@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:09 -0800
        Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 05:56 -0800
    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 13:53 +0100
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:39 +0100
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 14:00 -0600
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 21:30 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:41 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:56 +0100
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:16 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-27 08:25 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 10:14 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 15:39 +0100
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-01 15:51 +0000
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:12 -0800
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-02 09:04 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 13:04 -0700
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 09:22 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:27 +1300
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 02:16 -0700
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 10:22 -0700
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 10:23 -0700
                            Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 21:29 +0100
                              Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 16:27 -0700
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:01 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 23:17 -0600
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-02-27 12:15 +0000
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:29 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:10 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:45 +0100
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:12 +0100
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:43 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 23:09 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 22:10 +0000
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 14:19 -0800
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 00:57 -0800
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:09 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 09:10 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-27 21:38 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 13:55 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 16:20 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 08:09 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 09:21 -0800
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 09:28 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 12:49 +0100
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 05:59 -0800
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 15:50 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 07:10 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:01 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:28 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 19:39 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:36 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 21:55 +0100
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:39 -0800
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-02 01:33 +0100
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 16:53 -0800
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-02 14:49 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 16:14 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 22:49 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 14:02 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 23:04 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-02 02:29 +0100
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 00:41 -0800
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:51 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 02:07 -0800
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-04 09:44 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-01 14:26 +0000
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:08 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-01 14:31 -0600
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:44 -0800
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:24 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:11 +0000
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-03 15:51 +0000
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:20 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 09:48 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 01:05 -0800
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:41 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 05:06 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:58 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:59 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:52 +0000
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:11 -0500
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 11:40 -0600
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:59 -0500
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 11:43 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0100
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 12:57 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 19:19 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 12:55 -0600
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 22:47 +0100
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 14:24 -0800
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:22 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 11:54 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:14 +0000
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 14:22 -0600
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 02:57 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 14:59 +0000
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 15:43 +0000
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-03-05 09:57 -0600
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 17:59 +0000
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 19:17 +0000
                                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 17:08 +0000
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 21:27 -0600
                                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 18:22 +0000
                                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-07 19:01 +0000
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-05 11:43 -0800
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 20:16 +0000
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-06 09:58 +0100
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-05 15:59 +0000
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:17 +0100
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 19:17 -0800
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:30 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 09:47 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:16 +0000
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 11:12 +0100
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:09 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-04 12:16 +0000
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:40 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:23 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 15:30 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 17:31 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 10:46 -0800
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 18:56 +0000
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-16 18:25 -0500
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 12:22 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 14:12 +0100
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 09:08 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-03 10:00 +0100
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-26 22:07 +0000
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 14:21 -0800
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:18 +0100

Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#57706

Le 26/02/2015 22:41, David Brown a écrit :
> The step between detecting an interesting planet, and sending probes
> (even unmanned, or "unaliened" ones) is /vast/.  If we spot a planet in
> the goldilocks zone with detectable oxygen (or other interesting gasses)
> in its atmosphere, you can be sure we would spend a good gigadollars on
> a ten year project to measure its atmosphere more accurately to look for
> signs of civilisation.  We may even spend the money and time on making a
> transmitter that is actually capable of sending a detectable signal that
> far.  But would we spend teradollars and decades making a probe that is
> going to take 25000 years to reach its target?  What politician is going
> to bring that up in a budget?  And why would you think alien politicians
> think 25000 years ahead when human ones have trouble thinking about next
> week?

Well, I would not discuss this. Obviously you have very well researched 
this problem since you know that alien politicians can't make plans that 
span 25 000 years.

Ants live 45-60 days... To them, a being that can live 30 Thousand days
(a bit more than 80 years) is completely inconceivable.

Well, I have nothing to add. You are right I am wrong. Let's leave this 
at that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57738

On 26/02/15 22:56, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 26/02/2015 22:41, David Brown a écrit :
>> The step between detecting an interesting planet, and sending probes
>> (even unmanned, or "unaliened" ones) is /vast/.  If we spot a planet in
>> the goldilocks zone with detectable oxygen (or other interesting gasses)
>> in its atmosphere, you can be sure we would spend a good gigadollars on
>> a ten year project to measure its atmosphere more accurately to look for
>> signs of civilisation.  We may even spend the money and time on making a
>> transmitter that is actually capable of sending a detectable signal that
>> far.  But would we spend teradollars and decades making a probe that is
>> going to take 25000 years to reach its target?  What politician is going
>> to bring that up in a budget?  And why would you think alien politicians
>> think 25000 years ahead when human ones have trouble thinking about next
>> week?
> 
> Well, I would not discuss this. Obviously you have very well researched
> this problem since you know that alien politicians can't make plans that
> span 25 000 years.

I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien politicians
would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is making extraordinary
claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who must produce justifications
and evidence.

> 
> Ants live 45-60 days... To them, a being that can live 30 Thousand days
> (a bit more than 80 years) is completely inconceivable.
> 

The analogy "we would be like ants in comparison to an advanced alien
race" is hopelessly inaccurate and is blinding you to realistic
thinking.  It is /exactly/ the same though process as someone who
explains the contradiction between geology and the stories of Genesis by
saying "the ways of God are too mysterious for mere mortals to understand".

> Well, I have nothing to add. You are right I am wrong. Let's leave this
> at that.

It is not about "right and wrong".

I am not saying that there are no UFO's or visitations from aliens - I
am saying that there is no /proof/ of such contact, and I think, based
on the evidence of the world around us, what we know of the universe and
physical laws, and extrapolation of human civilisations, that it is
extremely unlikely that we have been visited by aliens.

Do you understand the difference here?

There is no scientific proof or reasonable evidence for alien
visitations of any sort - /nothing/ has stood up to scientific analysis.
 This does not mean it has not happened - it is an absence of proof, not
a proof of absence.  And it does not mean that there are known,
definitive scientific explanations for all reported "sightings" - merely
that there is no rational, logical and scientific basis for attributing
them to alien encounters.

Thus belief in alien encounters is in exactly the same category as
religious beliefs.  There is absolutely no scientific justification for
any religious claims - yet many people feel that their religious faith
is an explanation for the world that makes sense to them in a personal
way.  Similarly, there is absolutely no evidence for alien encounters -
but many people are convinced they are real nonetheless.

I don't mind in the slightest if you want to believe in alien
encounters.  That's up to you, just like any other religious beliefs you
and anyone else might have.  Just don't claim it is science, or that
there is evidence.

(And again, in case it is unclear, we are discussing UFO's and alien
encounters here.  Although we have no proof of the existence of life on
other planets, I think the science and statistics make it highly
unlikely for ours to be the only planet with life, and I think that we
will have proof for extraterrestrial life within our lifetimes.  That is
neither a scientific fact, nor a religious belief - it is a scientific
prediction.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57754

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien politicians
> would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is making extraordinary
> claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who must produce justifications
> and evidence.
[...]

But not here, please.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57758

W dniu piątek, 27 lutego 2015 17:25:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
> > I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien politicians
> > would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is making extraordinary
> > claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who must produce justifications
> > and evidence.
> [...]
> 
> But not here, please.
> 
if already stated i see not much bigger harm to develop it, 
imo personally most precious space that can be wasted is a space of roots of the thread branches, some ratio of offtopic threads to topic threads would be acceptable imo but that should be 1 OT on 10 topic threads or something like that
(maybe even more would be acceptable)
Same is a content of post if this ratio would be below 10% (30% ?) it would be probably acceptable
Other thing that there are sense/sane/interesting off-topics and nonsense pure trash ones (nonsense ones
are probably less welcome - though it seems that trash can turn in sense and viceversa sometimes)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57771

On 27/02/15 17:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
>> I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien politicians
>> would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is making extraordinary
>> claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who must produce justifications
>> and evidence.
> [...]
>
> But not here, please.
>

This is one of the occasional off-topic threads.  These don't harm the 
group - anyone not interested can easily kill the thread and move on 
(making it very different from the posts from this "Ramine" character). 
  As long as such threads are in the minority, and are of interest to a 
number of group members (as this one is, judging by the number of 
different contributors), then there is no harm in it.  View it as a chat 
around the coffee machine as a break from work in C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57792

On 28/02/2015 14:39, David Brown wrote:

> View it as a chat
> around the coffee machine as a break from work in C.

This is a pretty long coffee break!

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57793

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:51:46 +0000, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>On 28/02/2015 14:39, David Brown wrote:
>
>> View it as a chat
>> around the coffee machine as a break from work in C.
>
>This is a pretty long coffee break!

Internet time dilates coffee break time. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57818

Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:51:46 +0000, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
> >On 28/02/2015 14:39, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >> View it as a chat
> >> around the coffee machine as a break from work in C.
> >
> >This is a pretty long coffee break!
> 
> Internet time dilates coffee break time. :)

I don't like coffee. You run the risk of it being Java, for starters.
Can I have tea instead?

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58873

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 27/02/15 17:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> [...]
>>> I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien
>>> politicians would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is
>>> making extraordinary claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who
>>> must produce justifications and evidence.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> But not here, please.
>
> This is one of the occasional off-topic threads.  These don't harm
> the group - anyone not interested can easily kill the thread and
> move on [snip]

There are two problems with this statement.  One is that the
people who disagree with it are likely to have stopped reading
and so won't complain.  (So my comments can be seen as a public
service. :)  The other is that if you act on this assumption,
your behavior will be emulated by others whose responses are
less cogent and interesting than yours.  Like it or not, you
set a leadership example for less-qualified participants, and
the result is a lot more noise than signal, amplified by a
multiplicative effect.  So I suggest that it would be better
for you to err on the side of caution and go down these unrelated
tangents less often, or at least be meticulous in marking them
OT if/when you do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58904

On 24/03/15 21:04, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> 
>> On 27/02/15 17:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien
>>>> politicians would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is
>>>> making extraordinary claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who
>>>> must produce justifications and evidence.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> But not here, please.
>>
>> This is one of the occasional off-topic threads.  These don't harm
>> the group - anyone not interested can easily kill the thread and
>> move on [snip]
> 
> There are two problems with this statement.  One is that the
> people who disagree with it are likely to have stopped reading
> and so won't complain.  (So my comments can be seen as a public
> service. :)  The other is that if you act on this assumption,
> your behavior will be emulated by others whose responses are
> less cogent and interesting than yours.  Like it or not, you
> set a leadership example for less-qualified participants, and
> the result is a lot more noise than signal, amplified by a
> multiplicative effect.  So I suggest that it would be better
> for you to err on the side of caution and go down these unrelated
> tangents less often, or at least be meticulous in marking them
> OT if/when you do.
> 

I see your point.  I am not sure if it will change my posting behaviour
in any measurable way, but it is always worth remembering who might read
or be influenced by a post.

However, I am not convinced of the need of an "OT" marker on a topic
titled "Let's talk about UFOs then" :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58905

David Brown wrote:
>
> However, I am not convinced of the need of an "OT" marker on a topic
> titled "Let's talk about UFOs then" :-)

There was (and maybe still is) a newsgroup I used to follow where [OT] 
was used to mark the occasional On Topic thread :)  I hope this group 
doesn't fall down that path.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58907

My professor said that were is nothing
to say
no problem to resolve
no new application
no new demonstration 
etc
 some argument can dead...

The example were
the Geometry in 1700 1800
if I remember well

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58929

My professor said that where is nothing to say:
no problem to resolve 
no new application 
no new demonstration 
etc 
 some subject or discipline can dead... 

The example was 
the Geometry in 1700 1800 
if I remember well

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58930

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 24/03/15 21:04, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>
>>> On 27/02/15 17:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien
>>>>> politicians would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is
>>>>> making extraordinary claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who
>>>>> must produce justifications and evidence.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> But not here, please.
>>>
>>> This is one of the occasional off-topic threads.  These don't harm
>>> the group - anyone not interested can easily kill the thread and
>>> move on [snip]
>>
>> There are two problems with this statement.  One is that the
>> people who disagree with it are likely to have stopped reading
>> and so won't complain.  (So my comments can be seen as a public
>> service. :)  The other is that if you act on this assumption,
>> your behavior will be emulated by others whose responses are
>> less cogent and interesting than yours.  Like it or not, you
>> set a leadership example for less-qualified participants, and
>> the result is a lot more noise than signal, amplified by a
>> multiplicative effect.  So I suggest that it would be better
>> for you to err on the side of caution and go down these unrelated
>> tangents less often, or at least be meticulous in marking them
>> OT if/when you do.
>
> I see your point.  I am not sure if it will change my posting
> behaviour in any measurable way, but it is always worth
> remembering who might read or be influenced by a post.

Good to hear my comments were appreciated.

> However, I am not convinced of the need of an "OT" marker on a
> topic titled "Let's talk about UFOs then" :-)

Oh, just the opposite.  Seeing a thread "Let's talk about UFOs
then" without an OT designator, someone might think a thread
like, eg, "Perl runtime environment" (not to pick on Perl)
shouldn't get an OT designator, since clearly the latter is
more likely to be on topic than the former.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58958 — Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then

On 25/03/15 18:23, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> On 24/03/15 21:04, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 27/02/15 17:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien
>>>>>> politicians would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is
>>>>>> making extraordinary claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who
>>>>>> must produce justifications and evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> But not here, please.
>>>>
>>>> This is one of the occasional off-topic threads.  These don't harm
>>>> the group - anyone not interested can easily kill the thread and
>>>> move on [snip]
>>>
>>> There are two problems with this statement.  One is that the
>>> people who disagree with it are likely to have stopped reading
>>> and so won't complain.  (So my comments can be seen as a public
>>> service. :)  The other is that if you act on this assumption,
>>> your behavior will be emulated by others whose responses are
>>> less cogent and interesting than yours.  Like it or not, you
>>> set a leadership example for less-qualified participants, and
>>> the result is a lot more noise than signal, amplified by a
>>> multiplicative effect.  So I suggest that it would be better
>>> for you to err on the side of caution and go down these unrelated
>>> tangents less often, or at least be meticulous in marking them
>>> OT if/when you do.
>>
>> I see your point.  I am not sure if it will change my posting
>> behaviour in any measurable way, but it is always worth
>> remembering who might read or be influenced by a post.
>
> Good to hear my comments were appreciated.
>
>> However, I am not convinced of the need of an "OT" marker on a
>> topic titled "Let's talk about UFOs then" :-)
>
> Oh, just the opposite.  Seeing a thread "Let's talk about UFOs
> then" without an OT designator, someone might think a thread
> like, eg, "Perl runtime environment" (not to pick on Perl)
> shouldn't get an OT designator, since clearly the latter is
> more likely to be on topic than the former.
>

Nop - if there can be reasonable doubt (such as a in a thread about 
Perl's runtime environment), then an OT marker is useful if it is not 
concerned with C.  But this thread has resisted all attempts at bringing 
it on-topic - an OT marker is redundant.

Perhaps we need some new markers - "MOT" for meta-threads about what's 
on-topic and off-topic?  And "CIP" for "completely incomprehensible 
post", as there seem to be many of these in this group!

However, if adding a few characters to a subject line makes someone a 
few characters happier, then I will try to remember it in the future.  I 
may feel OT markers are often redundant, but I can't see that they do 
any harm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58983 — Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 25/03/15 18:23, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>
>>> On 24/03/15 21:04, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/02/15 17:25, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I made no such claims.  I asked /you/ why /you/ think alien
>>>>>>> politicians would plan 25000 years ahead.  It is /you/ who is
>>>>>>> making extraordinary claims about UFO's, and therefore /you/ who
>>>>>>> must produce justifications and evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not here, please.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of the occasional off-topic threads.  These don't harm
>>>>> the group - anyone not interested can easily kill the thread and
>>>>> move on [snip]
>>>>
>>>> There are two problems with this statement.  One is that the
>>>> people who disagree with it are likely to have stopped reading
>>>> and so won't complain.  (So my comments can be seen as a public
>>>> service. :)  The other is that if you act on this assumption,
>>>> your behavior will be emulated by others whose responses are
>>>> less cogent and interesting than yours.  Like it or not, you
>>>> set a leadership example for less-qualified participants, and
>>>> the result is a lot more noise than signal, amplified by a
>>>> multiplicative effect.  So I suggest that it would be better
>>>> for you to err on the side of caution and go down these unrelated
>>>> tangents less often, or at least be meticulous in marking them
>>>> OT if/when you do.
>>>
>>> I see your point.  I am not sure if it will change my posting
>>> behaviour in any measurable way, but it is always worth
>>> remembering who might read or be influenced by a post.
>>
>> Good to hear my comments were appreciated.
>>
>>> However, I am not convinced of the need of an "OT" marker on a
>>> topic titled "Let's talk about UFOs then" :-)
>>
>> Oh, just the opposite.  Seeing a thread "Let's talk about UFOs
>> then" without an OT designator, someone might think a thread
>> like, eg, "Perl runtime environment" (not to pick on Perl)
>> shouldn't get an OT designator, since clearly the latter is
>> more likely to be on topic than the former.
>
> Nop - if there can be reasonable doubt (such as a in a thread
> about Perl's runtime environment), then an OT marker is useful if
> it is not concerned with C.  But this thread has resisted all
> attempts at bringing it on-topic - an OT marker is redundant.

You only know that because you read all the messages!
The point is to make it so people don't /have/ to read
the messages to see if the discussion is topical.

> Perhaps we need some new markers - "MOT" for meta-threads about
> what's on-topic and off-topic?  And "CIP" for "completely
> incomprehensible post", as there seem to be many of these in this
> group!

Any marker you might care to make up is likely to be better
than no marker at all (ie, in cases where there is any
question).

> However, if adding a few characters to a subject line makes
> someone a few characters happier, then I will try to remember it
> in the future.  I may feel OT markers are often redundant, but I
> can't see that they do any harm.

This last comment I was very happy to read!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57707

On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 9:41:16 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
>
> It will not take nearly as long as "a few 
> centuries" until we are able to view their atmospheric composition 
> accurately enough to spot pollutants that indicated civilisation - and 
> long before that we will have enough resolution to spot oxygen in the 
> atmosphere, indicating at least basic lifeforms.
> 
Not all organisms are aerobic. Some thrive in a reducing environment,
admittedly mostly single-celled efforts, though recently a few multi-
cellular non-oxygen breathers have been found.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57723

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:01:37 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McLean
<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 9:41:16 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> It will not take nearly as long as "a few 
>> centuries" until we are able to view their atmospheric composition 
>> accurately enough to spot pollutants that indicated civilisation - and 
>> long before that we will have enough resolution to spot oxygen in the 
>> atmosphere, indicating at least basic lifeforms.
>> 
>Not all organisms are aerobic. Some thrive in a reducing environment,
>admittedly mostly single-celled efforts, though recently a few multi-
>cellular non-oxygen breathers have been found.


While this is wandering further and further afield...

I missed that we've found multi-cellular anaerobes.  Got a link?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57751

Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I missed that we've found multi-cellular anaerobes.  Got a link?

http://phys.org/news189836027.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/multicellular-life-found-that-doesn-10-04-09/

have an overview. Abtract and complete paper are here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/30/abstract
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/30/

                             Best regards, Jens
-- 
  \   Jens Thoms Toerring  ___      jt@toerring.de
   \__________________________      http://toerring.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57739

On 26/02/15 23:01, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 9:41:16 PM UTC, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> It will not take nearly as long as "a few 
>> centuries" until we are able to view their atmospheric composition 
>> accurately enough to spot pollutants that indicated civilisation - and 
>> long before that we will have enough resolution to spot oxygen in the 
>> atmosphere, indicating at least basic lifeforms.
>>
> Not all organisms are aerobic. Some thrive in a reducing environment,
> admittedly mostly single-celled efforts, though recently a few multi-
> cellular non-oxygen breathers have been found.
> 

I freely admit that I was being loose here, and using "finding oxygen in
the atmosphere" as a very rough phrase for "finding chemical components
in the atmosphere that cannot be explained by any known or conceivable
process other than lifeforms".  And of course there may be lifeforms
that have significantly different chemistry from our own, and therefore
significantly different signatures in their atmospheres.  It is quite
likely that we will miss planets like that as we analyse atmospheres,
and only feel confident in concluding about extraterrestrial life when
we find something similar enough to our biochemistry to be sure of the
signs.

Regarding oxygen in particular, life existed on earth for a long time
without measurable oxygen - any free oxygen quickly bound to other
chemicals (in particular, iron in rocks).  It was only after the
evolution and spread of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that there was
significant production of oxygen, and eventually oxygen in the
atmosphere (once all the iron and other chemicals were oxidised).

So a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere is certainly not proof of a lack
of life.  But on a rocky planet in the goldilocks zone, atmospheric
oxygen is a clear indication of life - something has to be producing the
oxygen, because any molecular oxygen from the formation of the planet
would have reacted long ago.  And it is almost certainly a necessity for
civilisation, because it is needed for burning.  Planets with
significant atmospheric oxygen are the ones to target for communication.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web