Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Science

News Of SETI Signal Just Bad Reporting 145

Posted by Zonk from the always-looking-to-the-future-to-the-horizon dept.
The Bad Astronomer writes "Rumors have been flying in recent days that the SETI project has received a strong signal from space, indicating the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Bad Astronomy breaks down the origins of this (false) claim, which mostly amounts to a heaping helping of shoddy journalism. 'I just talked to Dan Wertheimer, the astronomer quoted in the article. He told me that the original interview was about sending signals into space (so-called active SETI) as opposed to just listening for aliens. After the interview, he talked to the reporter about some of the astronomy he does, including looking at what are called radio transients: bursts of radio waves that are seen once and never repeat. These may come from one-off events like colliding neutron stars, exploding stars, and so on. Somehow, in the article the reporter mixed up the observation of the transient signals with detecting a signal from E.T.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

News Of SETI Signal Just Bad Reporting More

News Of SETI Signal Just Bad Reporting

Comments Filter:
  • Only the true messiah would deny his divinity.

    Ergo...I think this denial is a sure sign that SETI has found something.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cHiphead ( 17854 )
      Actually it would make sense that this is a reversal for the sake of coverup, the world already has lots of civil unrest, actual alien contact could spin it all out of control and everyone goes apeshit for a while, until we realize the signal is from a long since gone species (unless they're already on the way here).

      The nice part would be increased focus on space faring technology and more defense spending towards space based defenses (from the outside, not all point down at us).

      Cheers.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by dtml-try MyNick ( 453562 )
        I've often wondered what would happen if it somehow get's out to the public that we have received a signal from a alien origin.

        If, big if, we can somehow manage to prove without any doubt that some other species in space has sent a signal or message. I think it would/could be very beneficial to the human race.
        It could raise the awareness that the individual human is a almost meaningless small part of the universe, it would raise global thinking and consciousness. No more this is my land but this is our

      • Re:Must be aliens (Score:4, Insightful)

        by geekoid ( 135745 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dnaltropnidad}> on Thursday January 17, 2008 @05:43PM (#22086628) Homepage Journal
        "actual alien contact could spin it all out of control and everyone goes apeshit for a while"

        no it wouldn't. Not at all, please stop spouting Hollywood nonsense.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cHiphead ( 17854 )
          E.T. and 2001 are hollywood nonsense, I'm talking about the breakdown of religion, you think terrorism is an issue now? Just imagine how crazy the crazies can get if we ever make contact.

        • "actual alien contact could spin it all out of control and everyone goes apeshit for a while"

          no it wouldn't. Not at all, please stop spouting Hollywood nonsense.

          Are you serious? Discovery of extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent life, would arguably be the single most important discovery in the history of mankind. There's no telling what effect it would have on everyone, especially as there are (unfortunately) still a lot of deeply religious people with very geocentric/heliocentric belief systems.

    • See... he's the messiah!

  • Welcome (Score:5, Funny)

    by S.O.B. ( 136083 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @12:50PM (#22082598)
    I for one welcome our incompetent journalist overlords.

    • Re:Welcome (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17, 2008 @12:54PM (#22082644)
      Well sure, you read Slashdot, don't you? :)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by notnAP ( 846325 )
      Fox News?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      You better! If you don't, they will write you out of reality!

      This debunking is the first I heard of this "news". I guess I don't follow enough blogs...

      My favorite Stupid Journalist story, reported by Herb Caen, concerns a modern poet. A journalist asked him why his verses didn't rhyme. He responded that many great poets dispensed with rhyme, including Homer and Virgil. The journalist quoted him as saying that rhyme was invented by a poet named Homer Virgil!
    • May I quote you on that for an article I'm writing?

      "'Welcome' Signals Received from Incompetent Slashdot Overlords"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by S.O.B. ( 136083 )
        Hey, it's a public forum. Quote away.

        But to clarify, the "incompetent journalist overlords" I was referring to were the ones who wrote the article not the Slashdot editors that posted it.

  • Conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Freeside1 ( 1140901 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @12:52PM (#22082624)
    It really was alien, but the aliens are already here, and they're covering it up so they can terraform our planet with global warming.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kellyb9 ( 954229 )
      aliens??? you mean republicans, right?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Surt ( 22457 )
        Are you suggesting you've never noticed how odd Republicans are, and wondered?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by kellyb9 ( 954229 )

          Are you suggesting you've never noticed how odd Republicans are, and wondered?
          Ever since they started bringing up this Jesus character, I just can't get these sneaking suspicions out of my mind.
    • Ha! So you admit that global warming is not caused by humans!

  • Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nonsequitor ( 893813 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @12:53PM (#22082630)
    Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

    That saying proves itself everyday. I know most people don't understand science, but if you are reporting on it at least pay attention long enough to accurately report what you were told by someone who does understand. Why do people think it's ok to be proud of their ignorance? Its one thing to own your weaknesses having tried and failed, but it seems like most non-technical people stopped trying.

    • Re:Incompetence (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:01PM (#22082742) Homepage Journal
      I had a brief stint as a journalist - I always repeated back to my sources what I understood them to mean.

      They often corrected me.

      When I did a feature on a person, even a critical piece, I would send a draft to them before I submitted the article - usually there were no corrections - but when there were - they were vital.

      • Re:Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)

        by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:39PM (#22083268) Homepage
        I see why your stint was short. You were a good journalist, rather than an idiotic sensationalist one ... there's just no market for that any more. :(

      • No wonder (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Jabbrwokk ( 1015725 )

        When I did a feature on a person, even a critical piece, I would send a draft to them before I submitted the article - usually there were no corrections - but when there were - they were vital.

        No offence, but no wonder your stint was brief. The journalist's job is to get it right the first time, or ask for clarification during the interview. You get one chance to get it right when it goes to print.

        This is sometimes extremely difficult because when you are a journalist, if you make mistakes, they end up in print for everyone to see, with your name attached. But it's better to make mistakes, and correct them in humility, than to let your source write your story for you.

        I've worked as a journ

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Stanistani ( 808333 )
          I never let a source control my story - but I did let them know what was coming, and give them their shot at refuting my findings.

          One of my stories generated hundreds of hate emails to the subject, and he couldn't really deny any of the allegations in my article.

          I moved on to a better-paid job - I wasn't discharged.

          I did enjoy my employment, despite inverted pyramid leads and such.

        • Re:No wonder (Score:4, Informative)

          by Bombula ( 670389 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @06:51PM (#22087594)
          I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (imagine a journalist doing that...). This guy said he referred back to his sources for accuracy in data-collection, which is tantamount to accuracy in reporting. Yes, it's great if you can do this all during the interview, but going to press afterwards with reckless disregard for the facts is hardly "letting a source control the story." Moreover, the idea that the journalist 'controls' the story is asinine in itself. In the parent article about SETI, the journalist was obviously 'controlling' the story - thanks to his own moronic misunderstanding of the facts of the situation. I don't know about most readers here, but that's not my idea of quality journalism. Get the facts straight, understand what you're talking about, and fact-check your goddamn articles before you go to press. If that means clarifying a source's information after the interview, whether it's their quotations or the concepts behind them, then so be it: the telephone and wikipedia are your friends.

          A good journalist reports the facts accurately and objectively, even if it means going back to get something you missed or muddied during the interview. And the only thing controlling the story should be the truth. If you believe anything else, you're nothing but a hack whose willing to peddle any old dogshit for a moment in the limelight - the world doesn't need any more of those kinds of people.

    • It's not non-technical people in general: it's journalists in particular. My father, a retired journalist himeslf, used to tell me that journalists are the most ignorant people of all. And unrepentant.

    • but it seems like most non-technical people stopped trying.

      They have been told not to try by people they trusted while growing up, such as teachers, parents, and even the media. They have been told that science and engineering are a waste of time because any future employment in those areas will be outsourced to countries were the work is done for dirt cheap. This isn't the whole story, of course, but who are you going to trust? So they spend their time trying to learn how to sing or become a professional athlete (both one in tens of thousands shots) or they major

  • Next assignment (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @12:54PM (#22082654) Homepage Journal
    Stay tuned for this reporter's interview with a McDonald's manager. It turns out he actually invented cows!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by snl2587 ( 1177409 )
      Given what they're passing off for meat on the McDonald's Value Menu these days, I wouldn't be too surprised if one of them created a nasty, cardboard-flavored version of a cow.

      • Re:Next assignment (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:08PM (#22082842) Homepage
        When I was 16 (I'm 23 now) I did a one year stint in a McDonalds. I don't know if it's the same now as it was then, but when I was working there the boxes that the meat came in were all stamped USDA Grade A Beef. The problem is that for potential lawsuit reasons, McDonalds cooks all it's burgers to well done. When I worked there, for my dinner I would make one medium rare. This will sound crazy, but when they are cooked right (at least back then...again, don't know if this applies now) it made for one of the best burgers I've had anywhere.

        The beef is actually very high quality...it just gets cooked into oblivion (and cooked very quickly, at that...from walk-in refrigerator to ready-for-burger in about a minute and a half...not the best of ways to cook meat if taste is of any concern.)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mugnyte ( 203225 )
          Grade A is just one part of a system for meat classification, regarding age check it out [tamu.edu]

          The other grading system is based on marbling (prime, choice, etc). The scary stuff (hormones, growth hormone, feed content) are not part of that labeling system, sadly.

          I would bet that Micky D's is not worried about the "quality" of the meat so much as the taste and quantity/cost.

          The cost to your body: somewhere around eating cardboard [drbobthehe...uilder.com], regardless of taste.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by s20451 ( 410424 )
            This is getting increasingly off topic, but marbling -- the presence of fat within the muscle tissue -- is irrelevant to ground beef. If you want fattier ground beef, you can just grind up some fat with it.
        • I worked at Mcdonalds also when i was 16. That was a lot more then 20 years ago. Same thing the meat was better quality than what was generally sold to the public at the super markets. Same with all the other ingrediance. The quality was all first rate but the end result was all in preparation.

          But you know what? They taste that way because of very careful and scientific studies done by the company. They do focus groups and test marketing and they make what the vest majority of their customers want.

          Why

          • But you know what? They taste that way because of very careful and scientific studies done by the company. They do focus groups and test marketing and they make what the vest majority of their customers want.

            Also: they add artificial flavors back in to make it taste like meat again. "Fast Food Nation" had some very good research into it. They didn't directly pan the usage of artificial flavors in the book; in fact the author pointed out that the naturally obtained version of almond flavor contains cyani

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gnick ( 1211984 )

        ...a nasty, cardboard-flavored version of a cow.
        Think smaller... More legs...

  • The trouble with Journalists... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thewils ( 463314 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:02PM (#22082750) Journal
    Is that they aren't likely to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

    It also pisses me off greatly when newsreaders append their own opinion to the end of a news story. You are a newsreader dammit. Just supply the facts and let people make up their own mind - that is if it is possible for you to supply the facts without your personal bias in the first place.
    • Independent journalism exists no longer. They are entertainers providing "infotainment". They have to compete for eyeballs (==revenue) with sitcoms, reality TV, etc etc. They won't get eyeballs and the revenue if they stick with boring facts.

      Journailists are also being pushed harder and harder for more dramatic images (entertainment value) with embedded TV crews etc. This allows the military etc to manipulate the TV networks etc very easily: show what we want you to show or else your crew will be embedded w

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )

      It also pisses me off greatly when newsreaders append their own opinion to the end of a news story

      I often appreciate that and would like to see it more often, provided the opinion is clearly delineated from the facts. When you know nothing of a subject, a previous opinion is a good way to get started thinking about it, and then feel free to agree or not. When I was in the US I hated reporters like Dan Rather who would just stand there all self-important stating a few facts from the AP release and then... nothing. Tell us what it may mean, what it could imply, what possible consequences there are, etc..

  • The original article (Score:4, Informative)

    by hugecabbage ( 950972 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:03PM (#22082758) Homepage
    Here's the cached article: Has E.T. Made A Call? [209.85.173.104] [Google]
  • .. or awesome publicity stunt?
    • You know, I thought this too. Along with this story [usatoday.com], I can't help but think that these are suspiciously timed with the advertisements I'm hearing/seeing for Cloverfield [imdb.com]. I wouldn't put it past movie studios to "plant" stuff like this.

  • Pay no attention to the sig (Score:3, Interesting)

    by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:03PM (#22082778) Journal
    Mr. Harley: Your impatience is quite understandable.
    Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
    Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry... I wish it were otherwise.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 )
      I hate that fucking movie.

      Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.

      You mean stupidity like walking up to a line of nervous soldiers (members of a hostile race you have supposedly studied) pointing guns at him, pointing a tube at their leader and then having it quickly sproing out pointy appendages without warning? In reality he wouldn't have had one bullet grazing him. It owuld be 5000 of them completely ventilating his goofy looking spacesuit and any judge in that gal

      • And forget the whole "we willingly bend over for our robot overlords" thing. If they aren't stupid, why do they need an army of MechanoMonsters policing them?
        You might not have liked the movie, but I for one welcome out robot overlords...

  • links to cached article (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Bad Astronomer ( 563217 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (remonortsadabeht)> on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:06PM (#22082814) Homepage
    At the bottom of the blog post I put a link to the cached article, and I took a snapshot of it which is on my Flickr account. It's all linked on the blog.

  • Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doconnor ( 134648 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:07PM (#22082826) Homepage
    The problem with journalism is that journalists tend to report on so many different topics, they often don't really understand them. It's like if a programmer was given a totally different assignment every day. Even the best one couldn't do a good job because it would take weeks for them to understand how things work and all the terminology.

    Ideally, instead of relatively few full time journalists, they should have many part time journalists who work full time in the industry they report on. The quality of the writing might suffer a bit, but it would be far more accurate.

    Fortunately, we are seeing the rise of blogs where there are many people who know what they are talking about.

    • Re:Journalism (Score:4, Informative)

      by The Bad Astronomer ( 563217 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (remonortsadabeht)> on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:10PM (#22082874) Homepage
      I agree. It's very easy now to find, for example, astronomy news on blogs where the author knows what they are talking about (cough cough). Universe Today [universetoday.com] is a great example, and there are many others. The mainstream media have shot themselves in the foot over the past few years; very few have any dedicated science reporters, but the public *likes* science stories. So folks turn to teh intertoobs, and I for one welcome our new public overlords.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zordak ( 123132 )

      Fortunately, we are seeing the rise of blogs where there are many people who know what they are talking about.
      Sweet! Can you point me to those? Most of what I see is Jane Doe posting the x^nth picture of her stupid, lazy cat curled up in a ball with a "cute" caption like "The REAL Boss Around Here!"

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Knux ( 990961 )
      Don't forget /. readers... they know everything about any subject, that's why they never RTFA.

    • Problematic (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jabbrwokk ( 1015725 )
      What you get with that scenario is news written by hobbyists, which is not necessarily bad, but they are only writing about what they find interesting. Which explains why Wikipedia has more information about He-Man and the Masters of the Universe than string theory.

      And besides, the pay in journalism is shitty enough now, you're not going to get very skilled writers/researchers/thinkers for part-time wages. Unless you outsource reporting to India, which has already been done ( http://www.journalism.co.uk/ [journalism.co.uk]

      • What you get with that scenario is news written by hobbyists, which is not necessarily bad, but they are only writing about what they find interesting. Which explains why Wikipedia has more information about He-Man and the Masters of the Universe than string theory.

        The main entry for string theory [wikipedia.org] is significantly longer than the main entry for He-Man and the Masters of the Universe [wikipedia.org]. The entry for String Theory also has a significantly longer list of related entries in its "See Also" section.

      • I'm admitted that we would sacrifice writing quality somewhat. As long as it is readable, it should be fine.

        However, a lot less research and thinking would be required if the journalist already understood what they where talking about.
  • it wouldn't surprise me if it said that at the time of the recieval, the equipment was "pointed at Uranus"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ledow ( 319597 )
      Ah, ha! We found you out, Mr Alien. No human being would use a word like recieval when they actually meant reception. Now take off that fake beard...
  • What if the aliens were trying to contact us while visiting Earth? After all, long distance calls can be quite expensive.
    • Well, radio is not the best way to make that local call. No, what they should do is pick out some major airport and make a slow, careful approach and slow, careful landing. This assumes they have a flying saucer or something.

      Why an airport? They are ports. We expect to receive travelers there. We even have plans for what to do when planes land without making radio contact so sure, a flying saucer would be a little different, that type of landing would be sort of planned for. Kinda.

      So anyway, they la

  • wishing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:13PM (#22082914) Journal

      The web, as a reflection of the population as a whole, is chock full of wishful thinking about fantasies. The youtubes seemed to be clogged with "evidence" of UFOs, angels, monsters, ghosts, etc.

      Frankly, it's a little disappointing to see a lack of critical thinking. I'm all for discovering amazing new things, in any topic. But defending the stories wholesale under the guise of "how can you deny all the evidence?" kinda paints a picture of cultist mentality. Somewhat scary and journalists are not immune. They just want something that sounds like a "scoop" and grab the eyeballs (and sell the ads).

      SETI is a worthwhile endeavor to me, but of course they'd hold a press conference if something big didn't filter away.

  • After the interview, he talked to the reporter about some of the astronomy he does, including looking at what are called radio transients: bursts of radio waves that are seen once and never repeat. These may come from one-off events like colliding neutron stars, exploding stars, and so on.

    Dozens report seeing UFO over Stephenville, Texas [upi.com] which must've been neutron stars colliding in the air over that Wal-Mart.

  • Not to worry... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bobdotorg ( 598873 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:16PM (#22082958)
    Should the reporter get fired, he has a great future as a Slashdot editor.

    • Should the reporter get fired, he has a great future as a Slashdot editor.
      I don't know about that. He might have to republish that SETI story several more times before he's qualified. :)
  • Oh, my! I read the original cached article and it read exactly like something from The Onion [theonion.com]. Even the quotes seemed like the fake quotes even if they were real quotes taken out of context.

  • Cover up, the message was translated (Score:3, Funny)

    by edwardpickman ( 965122 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:26PM (#22083084)
    It did come from a system that went Nova though. Signal, "What's up with the sun? Oh shiiiitttttt........".
  • Not knowing much about how SETI is designed, I know that we're a moving solar system so if an alien on another moving planet received a signal from a certain broadcast direction and just reflected the beam in the direction of greatest strength, perhaps in the direction of a mobile gravitationally lensing black hole, even just ten light years in round trip time, the signal would miss us completely.

  • What really bothers me about this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phylarr ( 981216 ) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:30PM (#22083134)
    Is that you know the reporter will keep his job. If you're dumb enough to misinterpret by that degree the words that someone spoke to you, then you should have no job reporting on anything.

    The article actually contained the sentence "Across the globe, researchers searching for signs of life in space were abuzz this week with word that a mystery signal has been picked up by a giant radio-telescope in Puerto Rico."

    This was not just a science neophyte failing to understand big sciency words, this was a reporter blatantly making shit up.
  • ...or timely cover-up?

    Seriously, does anyone believe this kind of discovery would ever be casually announced, if made public at all?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      Absolutly it would be announced.
      Seriously, take a moment and think about it. SETI isn't under constant observation from the government and it's full of people who want others to know, not to mention the historic value of having your name associated with the greatest discovery of all time.

      This whole "People couldn't handle it" crap has no basis in fact, and is utterly ridiculous.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fbjon ( 692006 )
        Also, what the hell is it with Americans and the "news would be covered up by the government". Which of the world's governments? All of them? All radio telescopes around the world would be told to be quiet about it?


        This stuff is in probably every hollywood UFO film, and it just doesn't make any sense.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )
          It's the ultimate end to any conspiracy theory:
          All the governments must be covering it up.

          People who think we didn't land o the moon seem to conveniently ignore that it's progress was tracked by people who would have LOVED to disprove it.
          Then when they are asked about it, they say "That government must be in on it to." As if the Russians had something to gain by losing.

    • ...or timely cover-up?

      Seriously, does anyone believe this kind of discovery would ever be casually announced, if made public at all?
      well... no..... "They" would never let that get out... "They" would kill Mel Gibson with an earthquake first, just to distract everyone, before "They" wiped the data.
  • ...after the MIB show up with their flashy thing!
  • This reminds me of the famous joke about problems taking down what people are saying, when one of the monks translating the Bible decides to go back to the scrolls, and comes running out screaming, "CelebRATE! it says celebRATE!"
  • reporters should be made accountable for their actions, so often, when disscussing a particular scientific subject, reporters discuss the mainstream view and for good measure bring in this bearded nutcase to discuss his highly controversial but completely improbable take on the situation. To the layman (or woman), this would appear the such a view point is equally as valid as the mainstream view. Take for example global warming, a touchy subject at the best of times. For many years, the vast majority of the
  • The article in question [ktvu.com] has been updated to say,

    On Monday, KTVU reported scientists have received an odd signal from space and some readers may have interpreted this as a confirmed extra-terrestrial contact.

    I found the original from the Google Cache. You decide! [64.233.169.104]

  • Journalsim, noun 1) the ill-advised idea that someone with half an English degree and an ethics course can accurately and authoritatively report on highly technical fields with which he or she has absolutely no practical experience and whose understanding is likely more influenced by personal experience and/or bias than objective research.
    2) Modern interpretation - brief incomplete statement of fact taken out of context combined with opinionated rambling.

    Ask any lawyer. Doctor. Engineer. ANYONE. They wi
  • pool with neutron stars then maybe the reporter is correct?

  • Thousands of science stories published in a wide variety of media are faithful to the research, yet still interesting and topical. Still, one of the hardest things about science journalism is convincing the scientists you want to interview that you'll report accurately on their work.

    And then some jackass like this comes along and pees in the pool. I hope he was fired, at least.

  • Shielding problem found is, fleet detection future unlikely will be.

    Local Officials helping thanks is. Guantanamo beds, current using adequate has.

  • I worked for many years in Antarctica [gdargaud.net]. After we pulled out a 3km long ice core (nicknamed a 'carrot'), there were a bunch of phone interviews. The result ? First page of the italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera: "Million year old frozen carrots discovered 3km deep under the Antarctic ice"...

    Proof that science is a good thing, news reporting is a good thing, but mixing both together not necessarily...

    • I've seen other scientists carefully explain things to reporters only to have the report totally screwed up, and I have had it happen to myself, but never in such an amusing way. Normally its just depressing, especially as they usually make you look like an idiot in the process.
  • Life is very unlikely. It is very improbable. SETI will never find anything because even the universe is huge beyond understanding, the unprobability of life elsewhere is larger still. The probability of us ever communicating with this unprobable life elsewhere is equal to 0.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close