Stephen Hawking and Russian Billionaire Start $100 Million Search For Aliens 208
An anonymous reader writes: Stephen Hawking is joining forces with Russian billionaire Yuri Milner to start a $100 million effort to search the skies for signs of alien life. The initiative is called Breakthrough Listen, which will pay for large amounts of access to the Green Bank Telescope and the Parkes Telescope to scan the skies for signals over the next 10 years. They say the search will be 50 times more sensitive than previous attempts, cover 10 times more of the sky, and scan a greater portion of the radio spectrum 100x faster. They add, "All data will be open to the public. This will likely constitute the largest amount of scientific data ever made available to the public. The Breakthrough Listen team will use and develop the most powerful software for sifting and searching this flood of data. All software will be open source." The project is also supported by Frank Drake, Ann Druyan, and Lord Martin Rees.
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally some Russian billionaire who puts his money to good use. (No, I'm not joking.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In capitalist US, money spends you.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I say give it to the Universities. They're doing just about as good of a job as the Govt these days.
http://nypost.com/2015/07/09/w... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
For a change, his were not... He is basically Russian Zuckerberg, made his fortunes on Internet businesses...
Paul B.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the world doesn't need a Russian Shuttleworth, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
"look for them here in earth. Use them to sieve the thousands of stories about aliens"
That truly would be a complete waste of money.
All these loonie stories kidnapping, anal probes, etc, etc, is why serious SETI gets treated as a joke.
Anyway,it's been done.
The answer is 99% proven nothing happened, 1% unknown.
Use your brain. If aliens are visiting us with such frequency, WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE?
Any artefact made off-earth will have a different isotopic ratio, even if we don't know what it is.
Where i
Re: (Score:2)
But what about those chips bags (or crisps, to those of you east of the pond) that return to their original shape after you crumple them?
Saucer tech!
First Contact (Score:2)
Ha.
Futile search? (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding has been that we should expect a civilization to use radio broadcasts that radiate out and which we can distinguish from noise for only maybe 100 or so years. Prior to that, they've not invented radio. After some point, all transmissions are compressed and/or encrypted so that they're harder to distingush from noise. And at some point, transmissions may be done via other media, such as point-to-point lasers and even things we haven't discovered yet. The likelihood is that all over civilizations have started at different points and progressed differently, so we've likely missed that window on all other civilizations.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to mention that aliens might have figured out that it could be a bad idea to let others know they exist, so they are purposely being quiet.
Also nobody knows how long civilizations last. It is quite possible that the nearest civilization to us vanished billions of years ago.
There is also the possibility we are the first species to have achieved this level of tech....
There is also the problem of defining what life actually is. Is Earth life the only kind possible? The most common type? The rarest type?
Too
Re:Futile search? (Score:5, Interesting)
The speed of light also comes into play in the Fermi Paradox. It's quite possible that for a billion years there's been a vast galactic scale civilization in the universe emitting copious amounts of readily-identifiable radiation. But if that galaxy is more than a billion light years away, it would be physically impossible for us to see them.
There's lots of things about the universe that would make it hard for advanced lifeforms to spot each other unless they're close.
And I fully agree about our own solar system (although I personally think Mars is a terrible place to look and Europa is overrated). There's so many "worlds" in our solar system with fluids (including water, although I wouldn't be so bold as to say that it's a requirement for all life) and energy sources to harness. Organic chemicals seem very common too, even complex ones.
Of all of the bodies in the solar system, I think Enceladus has the best potential payoff in terms of "dollars vs. chance of finding evidence of life". Namely because you don't even have to land on it to do a sample return (but if you do want to land on it for better sample collection, it takes little energy to take off again). And because it emits its internal sea straight up into space. And its internal sea has interesting properties - namely, it's a hyperbasic sea caused by serpentinization of its rocky core, which is a process that also releases hydrogen, giving a potential fuel source to hydrogen-metabolizing life.
That said, my dream mission is still a Titan sample collection/return mission using an RTG-powered rotary nacelle craft to fly in hops all across the planet over the course of a year, recharging its flight batteries overnight on the surface and taking small samples from every potential terrain - dune fields, rivers, the various seas, cryovolcanoes, etc. It would then re-dock with its ascent stage (single solid stage similar to a small Pegasus stage), lift the ascent stage out of the atmosphere (to reduce drag) and as fast as possible until it's drained its flight batteries (which would happen quickly with the added load), ditch all unneeded weight and fire the ascent stage to re-dock with the ion-powered orbiter that got it there. The orbiter, having spent the past year skimming the outer layers of Titan's atmosphere for return propellant that doubles as an atmospheric sample return, would then return to Earth, possibly skimming Enceladus's plumes and Saturn's atmosphere on the way for more sample returns.
No question that would be a flagship mission, though, requiring two RTGs and three stages. An Enceladus-only return could probably be done on Discovery or New Frontiers budget (probably the latter).
Re: (Score:2)
(although I personally think Mars is a terrible place to look
I've also heard that it ain't the kind of place to raise the kids. In fact, it's cold as hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny ;) But the main point is that its surface is high radiation and very oxidizing; and as far as we know there's no liquids anywhere on Mars except for possible transients or extremely perchlorate-rich brines (aka, something you'd use to sterilize a rock of life).
On the other hand, subsurface water oceans are common elsewhere in the solar system, and colder bodies are known and/or theorized to have a wide range of alternative liquids.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you wrote. But I have the most interest in sample returns because we have such vastly greater analysis capabilities here on Earth than we could ever send on a mission - especially a lower budget mission. And by leaving off surface science hardware, you save development costs and a significant amount of spacecraft mass.
Also, capturing samples, you don't have to land to have a low impact velocity. If you reach Saturn via ion propulsion then you could at little cost enter a Molniya-l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$100 million is a small price to pay for the humongous astronomy database that will come of this effort, and the tools to manipulate such a monster database, that we don't have yet.
The chance of them being successful seems pretty small, but this is one of those endeavours where we all win big, even if they lose.
Go for it!
Re: (Score:2)
"If the search for extraterrestrial life leads to that life deciding to destroy all life on earth, would it
still be a "good investment" ?"
The proposed plan is for listening only, not broadcasting a "here we are" signal,.
If there are indeed malignant and hostile aliens who extermiante every other species that pops up, it would be even more important to know all we can about them.
Re: (Score:2)
The likelihood is that all over civilizations have started at different points and progressed differently, so we've likely missed that window on all other civilizations.
Not if you consider time for the signal to reach us. Theoretically we could be getting signals from civilizations spanning a very wide time period, going way way back. There may be a likelihood that any signal we receive is from a long dead civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
but how many of those are strong enough to travel light years? i use my smartphone daily but i doubt some alien NSA will be looking at what i'm doing in a few hundred or thousand years. same with TV and radio. FM radio can barely go a hundred miles at the strength most radio stations are transmitting it, how is it going to travel the stars?
Do you think electromagnetic waves just sort of stop after a while when they get a stitch?
Got to LOVE The Drake! (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't an understanding, it's an assumption made by us to try to put some parameters in place around what we'd look for.
The reality is, we have no idea what to expect.
We also have no idea how many (if any) there could be, how they'd be distributed, and how far away they could be ... remember, it could take centuries to ever hear a signal originating from far enough away.
Nobody said it's a perfect solution, and there's no guarantee it will work.
If you don't listen you'll simply never know. But, really,
it is even worst (Score:3)
The only things pretty much th
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding has been that we should expect a civilization to use radio broadcasts that radiate out and which we can distinguish from noise for only maybe 100 or so years. Prior to that, they've not invented radio. After some point, all transmissions are compressed and/or encrypted so that they're harder to distingush from noise. And at some point, transmissions may be done via other media, such as point-to-point lasers and even things we haven't discovered yet. The likelihood is that all over civilizations have started at different points and progressed differently, so we've likely missed that window on all other civilizations.
From what I've read of the linked articles, the specific examples they are giving are for radar, both aeronautical and interplanetary. Active radar will have use long after the use other radio waves have been reduced. The natural and unnatural sources for such are probably fairly well understood and recognizable, the band they exist in is due to practical uses that all races would need, and a more advanced civilization with need to scan their solar system for objects in space would probably have an increase
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding has been that we should expect a civilization to use radio broadcasts that radiate out and which we can distinguish from noise for only maybe 100 or so years. Prior to that, they've not invented radio. After some point, all transmissions are compressed and/or encrypted so that they're harder to distingush from noise. And at some point, transmissions may be done via other media, such as point-to-point lasers and even things we haven't discovered yet. The likelihood is that all over civilizations have started at different points and progressed differently, so we've likely missed that window on all other civilizations.
Even encrypted comms requires beacons and markers that would not be encrypted, else there'd be no way of initiating contact or synchronizing.
That said, I have my doubts about ever finding other civilizations, even though I'm convinced they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. But how would you delineate individual messages? With pure random data (from which properly encrypted data is indistinguishable) you would not be able to synchronize to find message boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be a transmission. Maybe they're inadvertently emitting radio as a byproduct of a large-scale industrial process.
Which will be extremely hard to determine ISN'T from natural causes... It will be 1. Very weak by the time we here it, 2. Will be changed by the affects of traveling though space/time for very long periods of time. 3. Will be literally a small part of a huge number of very loud emitters...
Oh, and I'd like to point out, that if our experience with RF sources for industrial purposes usually involve heating water, which uses spectrum that is not going to be very good at making long distances across space wh
Hope they fund Fast Radio Burst searches as well (Score:5, Interesting)
We currently have a list of 11 FRBs (Fast Radio Bursts) [wikipedia.org], two of them are almost certainly from the same source, FRB 110220 and FRB 140514, as can be seen from their detected locations.
I posted in my journal [slashdot.org] we should be on the look out for a repeat on August 6, 2017 (if from an intelligent source), however it could be any integer fraction of 1179 days and 15 hours added to May 14, 2014 if we missed some pulses.
I also find it odd we haven’t nabbed any new pulses since 2014, when we are searching more closely for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah they just told folks at Parkes to stop opening the microwave door before the timer went off.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.0216... [arxiv.org]
So Sure Are You? Howabout this source? (Score:2)
Fast radio bursts: the observational case for a Galactic [arxiv.org]
origin
Hawking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hawking? (Score:5, Informative)
He was on stage at the official launch, so at the very least he's happily lending his name of his own free will.
Mind you, we've only got that computer of his's word for it, and who knows when that became self-aware...
Re: (Score:2)
So... in such a way that him saying "Help me, I'm trapped!" would become "I fully support this initiative!" :)
Re: (Score:2)
All manner of people, smart and otherwise, hold all manner of dubious beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
All manner of people, smart and otherwise, hold all manner of dubious beliefs.
*cough* all religions *cough*
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, you'd hurt your toe.
Re: (Score:2)
Hawking is already on record saying it is a bad idea to try and contact alien races. OTOH, checking to see if we can here them doesn't pose much threat.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather we there them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hawking *can't* be so stupid... (Score:2)
as to think that:
1) anonymous space aliens are radiating coherent energy in all directions (we sure aren't) and,
2) that we'll pick them up, when receiving photons from stars is so difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
as to think that: 1) anonymous space aliens are radiating coherent energy in all directions (we sure aren't) and, 2) that we'll pick them up, when receiving photons from stars is so difficult.
but...
1) We are. The specific examples given are aeronatical and interplanetary radar which we are radiating in all directions.
2) Also from the given specific examples, they have figured out what they can detect from such systems based on what we are currently using.
Unlike other radio waves, active radar is something that a more advanced race will need more powerful versions of to track things in their solar system and must use a limited range of frequencies for due to the physics of the job.
Re: (Score:2)
active radar is something that a more advanced race will need more powerful versions of to track things in their solar system
Why not use transponders?
And if they're really advanced, they'll point their radars relatively close to the plane of the ecliptic where all the stuff is.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's hard to put a transponder on a rock that you've never detected before. And detecting a rock that might produce a C-T Boundary on your planet if you don't notice in time is....bad.
Except, possibly, that one rock that wou
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno.
ISTM that *constantly* blasting out Very High Wattage radio waves in *every* *spherical* *dimension* is just... wasteful. Really, really wasteful. Not to mention really polluting of the EM spectrum.
A constellation of satellites each scanning it's own region of space seems more efficient. They could also use LIDAR in the same way that we make 3D models of rooms and caves.
Re: (Score:2)
Those stars are GINORMOUS.
Meanwhile, we need massive radio telescopes to receive messages from the planet next door.
A more fruitful search method (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought Hawking said we should avoid aliens... (Score:5, Interesting)
'I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a pretty big difference in listening for aliens, and actively sending out messages. He was advocating not to do the latter; he never said the former was bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, clearly Earth is the best place to get resources. They certianly would want to venture down it to our gravity well to get out water ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) and our precious metals ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). They may want to eat us ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). But maybe these are all the stupid ideas of stupid primates. They are just as likely to visit for our political and religious ideas.
The most likely expla
The radiocentric view of intelligence... (Score:2)
is going to miss a lot. A planet full of tool using dolphins would be invisible to us. Jovian civilizations without metals to direct radio would have the same issues. A radio using civilization that had taken all of their radio digital, complete with compression and encryption would be invisible as well since all the entropy would be distributed in such a way as to make all radio traffic appear as noise. Even a zipf analysis would probably fail.
A more interesting approach would be to attempt to train curren
Ok so the search for aliens is failsauce but... (Score:3)
Update: Russian Billionaire cancels agreement (Score:2)
.
Prime Flaw in Fermi Paradox (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"...we have no reason to suspect we know what to look for."
The progression of our own technology gives us a very good reason to believe we know what to look for. At least *some* of what to look for. Namely radio frequency transmissions. It's logical to assume that any advanced civilization would have discovered and experimented with radio waves before developing a more sophisticated communication technology.
Yes, we might be unable to detect "sub space" communications from Star Fleet, but I expect we'd be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we don't posses technology to communicate between stars (all but the nearest) or travel between them
The point is that if other more advanced civilisations can't do this either, we're never going to be in contact. So even if they do exist, we will never know.
Depending on the invention of FTL travel is pretty much the same as saying it's impossible.
Execute the message (Score:2)
If we do receive a message that looks like a computer program, we will, of course, execute it. What could possibly go wrong?
We might not be able to find aliens, but they could find us. We have been broadcasting for 100 years, so the number of stars in that light sphere is growing.
How could they cover the vast distances of space? In star wars type space ships? Of course not. We live in an information age, so they they would transmit themselves as computer programs.
("They", of course, would not be little
Re:100 million quest to waste 100 million (Score:5, Interesting)
No one with a brain would use microwaves, optical SETI is far more efficient and the logical choice. For a picosecond, a source can out shine the local star and transmit an obvious artificial pattern. The whole spectrum from infrared to ultraviolet can be monitored at once too
Re:100 million quest to waste 100 million (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a serious point. Our own radio signals are probably indistinguishable from background noise from Alpha Centauri, and they're actually reducing with time, not increasing.
Rather than than looking for "stray radio communication" (you really think an advanced society is going to lose lots of energy to stray communications?), we should either be striving for extreme optical / UV resolution (satellite-based interferometer telescope) so that we can spatially resolve surface spectra on extrasolar planets in our area to look for signs of life; and in general look for signs of energy release that might be associated with interstellar travel, such as antimatter annihilation, directed thrust, solar sail reflection, etc.
IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Optical SETI also allows for far higher gains with a much smaller antenna.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's obvious to you, then maybe take 10 minutes to write down the proof. The billionaire will be happy to buy your proof for 50 millions if it's gonna save him 100 millions.
Remember that this is why "they won't find proof".
1. The circumstances for life are pretty darned unique here on Earth. While there are *possible* duplicates in other solar systems, the chances of getting a planet that is habitable in another solar system is pretty slim. It's more than just being the right distance from the sun, but the planet size, the orbit of the moon, the molten Iron core, the amount of water, carbon, etc. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that there are going to be very few tha
Suggesting the uniqueness of life (Score:2)
For a better approach, still full of swag, start with today's number and count and assume.
If there are 10 to the 11th power stars in the Milky Way, then all I need are 11 events in a row with a 1 in 10 chance of occurring. Life doesn't seem so inevita
Re: (Score:2)
A big moon so water life can spread to land. 1/100 (having a moon is a biggie).
Why do you need to spread life to land? There were probably a billion years or more of life on earth that was nothing but archaea, and it's still life and if things hadn't changed they would have kept on living as happily as archaea can be.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least it's a 1 in 8 "Planets" do not support life, or if you count Pluto and the other "dwarf planets" you have a 1 in 13 chance. If you count ALL the bodies that orbit the sun, then the numbers jump into the millions to 1.
Remember, if any of the following where different, earth would not support life:
1. Molten Iron Core
2. The amount of water
3. Our atmosphere's depth and it's general makeup needs to be pretty close..
4. Earth's Magnetic Field
5. The size of the planet needs to be within a na
Re: (Score:2)
Points 6 and 10 are pure hokum, an attempt to get zero terms into the Drake equation, to yield a zero result.
Having a large Moon has given us higher tides, but even if tides were essential to life, the Sun alone would give us 40% of the tide we see today. The Moon has an effect on reducing the Earth's axial tilt, but latest estimates are that the Moon contributes only about ten degrees of stability.
And while some rate of rotation is essential for evening out weather, there is nothing sacred about Earth's sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that "simple life" will predominate, so I think our search for life should be two-pronged. First we look for gross atmospheric changes, such as a free oxygen atmosphere, that point to a "cyanobacteria plus" ecosystem, the 'plus' factor being zero or more lifeforms added to an elementary soup of photosynthesizing bacteria.
Looking for intelligence is an entirely different effort, subject to a Drake filter with several more terms, such as long-time star stability and the ability to maintain civilized
Re: (Score:2)
Points 6 and 10 are pure hokum, an attempt to get zero terms into the Drake equation, to yield a zero result.
I'm glad you recognize the argument.. But the point here is that habitable planets are, by definition, exceedingly rare. There may be millions if you look far enough, but you have to start with BILLIONS of solar systems to get to that number... The chances of actually finding a star at the center of a solar system with a habitable planet orbiting it are pretty slim. But that's NOT all I'm saying...
The problem of finding "proof of alien life" is much more complex and even more unlikely than there actually b
Re: (Score:2)
"And while some rate of rotation is essential for evening out weather, there is nothing sacred about Earth's specific rotation rate."
I concur. According to the documentary "First life" when evolution started the day on Earth was merely 6 hours long.
What made me an impression though, was the speculation of how "snowball Earth" promoted the evolution of oxygen secreting microbs and kick-started the whole multi-celular life as oxygen gave more energy available to the future organisms [aerobic metabolism]. That
Re: (Score:2)
You're awfully confident in the uniqueness of life on earth, given that we really haven't even made much effort to determine its presence or absence in other potentially habitable places in our own solar system (and there are at least a few, and they aren't all planets in their own right), and that we've only had confirmation of the existence of extrasolar planets for less than 20 years. The statistics on extrasolar planets are still skewed by selection effects of the methods we use to look for them, despi
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting argument and many good points. I do just want to mention this though:
3. Our atmosphere's depth and it's general makeup needs to be pretty close
Yes, for intelligent life such as we know it, such an atmosphere is almost certainly a requirement. But don't forget that Earth didn't start out with the atmosphere we have today, it was initially very hostile and required a lot of time for life itself to 'Terraform' the Earth to this point.
No, we won't be doing crossword puzzles with the lifeforms we find on such a planet - but it will still be a form of alien life we're ve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How old are you?
Old enough to know better, young enough to not care....
Assume I have another 100 years to live...
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of Fermi's Paradox? Does your argument boil down to "They aren't going to find anything because no one has found anything so far"?
Isn't Fermi's paradox more like "they aren't going to find anything because if anything was going to be found it would have been found already"? It's not quite the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't confirm anything. That's why the hunt is still on for people to burn money. All they need is to believe because the absence of proof will never be enough confirmation. See: Any religion ever.
Funny you bring up religion, because Mr. Hawking is decidedly atheist. For him, the search for alien life would be vindication of his religious beliefs, at least on some level. So is it a wonder that he wouldn't jump at a chance to waste his benefactor's money for this? I don't think so. Surely he knows that the chances of successfully proving alien life are literally zero, but religion causes a lot of money to be spent on stupid things so off we go. I guess some scientists and astronomers will be kept of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I quite agree with you. The Bible is silent on this question and is written from the human perspective of one creation and one Creator. I see no reason to limit the Creator to just one creation or limiting that creation to just one planet, He could have more if He whished.
However, I don't think the existence of other worlds or creations matter to the relationship between the Creator and life here on earth for a number of reasons. One, the Bible is silent on the subject, so the Creator didn't
Re: (Score:2)
As best I can tell, and I've been studying it all my adult life, there is nothing in the Bible to preclude the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life. It is not mentioned as such, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. The universe is a big place. I find it unlikely that we would find extraterrestrial life, even if it were reasonably common, for reasons already amply stated by others. However, it would in no way call any part of the Christian faith into question if we did.
Also, there is this tiny little fact that there are religions other than Christianity. For some, discovering alien life would actually validate some of their beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Atheism isn't a religion, you moron..
Says who? Hawking? Somebody else? Just you?
Where I understand Atheism doesn't want to think of itself as a religion, it meets all the requirements of one as far as I can tell. It even has it's zealots out trying to poke other "religions" in the eye and giving it a bad name.... Then there is the resorting to name calling....
Lighten up and accept that many consider Atheism a religion... In many ways it is...
Re:Dumb idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No chessplayer, you.
If found, the next step is to watch as govennments dump billions into sensitive listening, followed by some idiot broadcasting at them.
It is inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
retreat into virtual worlds as the end game
YES! I'm surprised at how few people talk about this. Why stick around in a boring hostile universe when you can live in a perfect utopia of your own creation?
Re: (Score:2)
Outside the singularity nuts, you don't often find people advocating for a video game afterlife.
Besides, your mom will probably just unplug your universe to run the vacuum cleaner in your basement "apartment", fulfilling the prophecy: The great Filter Queen will being an end to all existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside the singularity nuts, you don't often find people advocating for a video game afterlife.
Apart from teenagers who enjoy video games but have no skill at reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Listening to a radio telescope in no way helps aliens find us.
That's what they want you to think, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Grass is a living thing... you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover why broadcast omnidirectionally instead of a tight beam in the desired direction? We already do this it makes zero sense to do otherwise. So on top of the long lanundry list of other things that all must line up we must have that physical line of sight too - like finding that needle in a haystack black hole that points a jet directly at earth.
You do realise antennae are usually designed to have a main beam with minimised side lobes? Or, did you not take an antenna theory class, or even read a book on them, and are simply spouting off about something of which you know nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't really be this stupid, right?
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
a) Who says he's giving any money? His name alone is worth plenty.
b) There are other ways of making money. He's reportedly worth $20m.
Re: (Score:2)
"How about improving intelligent life here at home instead? "
You mean building better humans?
The politically correct orthodoxy would have you burned at the stake if you announced a $100M initiative to create stronger, more intelligent and more disease-resistance strains of homo sapiens.