What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
53 Comments
- thegrantman, on 07/29/2008, -2/+19"Death"? Absence of life isn't death....you need life first.
- p014k, on 07/29/2008, -2/+16Space porn? Really?
- selfhelp, on 07/29/2008, -1/+14Cool!, I bet all of those specks of light in the background are other galaxies
- brycehebert, on 05/03/2009, -1/+11Dude, guess who doesn't give a ***** if it was on Reddit earlier!
If you said about 99.9% of Diggers, you're right!!! - duckyinc, on 07/29/2008, -1/+10Stupid version of this
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008 ... - dynasaur, on 07/29/2008, -2/+11Finally, scientific proof of the life force. I'm totally stocking up on materia now.
- leerayIG88, on 07/29/2008, -1/+7I hate Shroud of War....
- SmokedL, on 07/30/2008, -1/+5This recurring assumption that all life will be physically similar to us is ridiculous. The possible ways that life could emerge are literally infinite. Assuming that some area of space will be lifeless because it could not support us is inane.
If you asked actual scientists that spend time thinking about the possibility of life in the universe whether they believed that odds are that life that life would have a physical structure similar to ours, I for one would be terribly disappointed in any scientist that claimed to be fairly certain that it would. - inactive, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3From his profile:
"I preach at a church called Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. I don't know how to describe myself. I believe that God exists just as I believe that the sun rises every day."
lolwut. - SocialPoison, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3Funny thing is you are going to be buried into oblivion
- cj485, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3AND his name is americaisdoomed.
...he's joking, right? - uthallan, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3Reminds me of Mass Effect...good time...man...good times.
- aterimperator, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2There's another article on digg "Humans Predicted to Contact Extraterrestrial Civilization", in which they basically say that there's no good reason to think hydrocarbons are required for life.
I've always wondered why all the scientists think hydrocarbons are necessary for life, I always figured they needed a bit of cross training in engineering where most tasks can be done with multiple materials. - insertAliasHere, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2⇑ The standard reaction to being pwned.
- aterimperator, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2It's even worse than that considering the other article on digg right now about "Humans Predicted to Contact Extraterrestrial Civilization", in which they basically say that there's no good reason to think hydrocarbons are required for life.
- lamiaconfitor, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2The Drake Equation. Again, not "Fair certainty," but a but a nice, vague model that is rooted in good 'ol scientific practicality.
N = ( R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc) x L
fairly conservative estimates might place the number of intelligent species in the galaxy at approximately 1,000.
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/d ...
but are you going to run into something that looks like us? I couldn't even guess. But I think it is more important we communicate then be able to reproduce, right? - cheezintern, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2Organic compounds does not necessarily equal life (as far as we know). Therefore there can't be any death since there isn't any life (as far as we know).
- 3drage, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2It's life Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it.
- ooblez, on 07/29/2008, -2/+3edit: actually i think i just got trolled.
- patthew, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Read this guy's other comments. He may be trolling, but he's damn hilarious at it.
- TheMidnight, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1It's worse than that; it's physics Jim.
- DeskFlyer, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Uh....not really.
- UKh2o, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1stunning.
- 3leggedHorse, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Fair enough.
- mrgodai, on 07/30/2008, -1/+2the aftermath of star wars
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1I'm convinced.
- thecoolestguy, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1----The Pinwheel galaxy shimmers with life, but it's surrounded by death. Those red and blue areas surrounding the galaxy are devoid of organics, otherwise known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which scientists believe are the building blocks of life, this new photo from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory shows. These "organics" diminish towards the outer portion of the galaxy, and then quickly drop off to nothing at the outer rim, destroyed by harsh radiation from stars. Click through to see a sunrise as photographed from the International Space Station.-----
I don't get it, why are organics destroyed by radiation as they reach the outside of the galaxy? Wouldn't there be more radiation from stars towards the center of the galaxy, where the stars are concentrated, versus the outside? - kateyall, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah.. where's the "fap" comment?
- TheMidnight, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1He's a parody of Fred Phelps. Look it up on Wikipedia. I'm too lazy to post a link.
- lamiaconfitor, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1I think it is safe to assume that there aren't 'space whales' in the sun... we have to work within the auspices of what we actually know works, if we find exceptions, then we should add them to a reasonable debate. I think that worrying about extra dimensions, etc is the equivalent of taking a cubic inch of space in front of your face and trying to communicate with intelligent life there. You have no reason to assume there is life in Gas giants. I am not saying that science does not have leaps and bounds ahead of it, but we cant just assume the world will work within the constructs of our fantasies, rather then facts and evidence.
- TheMidnight, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1I think it's high time you donated your liver.
- hellospew, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1What the hell is up with the sunrise picture? How is that relevant to the story? Next time on your local news: A man was brutally shot today, tune in at 11 for a picture of a kitty!
- NoozeHound, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1What does it matter? Another Gawker site creeps odiously front-pageward.
- lamiaconfitor, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1You are doing it wro...
Ah, ***** it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss - inactive, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1No, really?
- neonsox, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1I think I see Uranus and yes, it is surrounded by Death.
- th3heretic, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1mm Space Porn... Rule 34 at its best.
- M724, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1I know a few people I'd like to send to that galaxy.
- SmokedL, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1Well it is something to start discussion :)
However, quite a few of those assumptions that annoy me are implicit in the formula itself.
"N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy"
This assumes you need a star.
Who says life requires a star? There are other energy sources.
"fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them"
This assumes you need a planet.
Who says life requires planets? Most of the matter in the universe is not contained in planetary bodies, why would you assume life could only exist/arise on a planet?
"ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life"
This assumes we can predict all the types of life that may emerge and figure out how the planet should be composed to support such life. Well that's if I'm being generous. More likely is that it assumes that "can support life" means it's earth-like. I see absolutely no reason to believe either.
If you adapt the rest of the factors to not assume the above factors I guess they make sense, but considering that I believe the first three factors to be rubbish I suppose you realize that I don't exactly believe that you can make any reasonable estimate using this formula.
I think the assumption that we can predict the forms of life that may arise among the vast numbers of stars, planets, black holes, gas clouds, asteroids, comets, etc based upon the observation of the life on a single planet is utterly absurd. A tragicomic hubris.
I think it's quite likely that there are a plethora of lifeforms out there that have nothing in common with carbon based life. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if we've already observed them, or their artifacts, but failed to realize it because we make so many assumptions about how and where life may arise, and what forms it may take.
What's to say that there is not other forms of life in our own solar system, perhaps in one of the gas giants, or in the sun?
That we could not imagine how it would arise?
That we have not detected it?
I'd consider either motivation another demonstration of hubris. Our civilization and science are in their infancies, we need to admit just how little we know, how unlikely we are to predict the forms life may take. If we don't, I fear we will fail to look in the right places, or fail to realize what we are seeing. - JakeyG14, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1Did anyone else wish it had one more word at the end of the sentence; "Stars".
- SmokedL, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1Interesting comment considering I was talking so much about unfounded assumptions. Let's pick it apart shall we?
"I think it is safe to assume that there aren't 'space whales' in the sun..."
Straw man.
"we have to work within the auspices of what we actually know works, if we find exceptions, then we should add them to a reasonable debate."
How likely would you say it is that these exceptions will be found if we only research what is already expected? Where would science be today if previous scientists had "worked within the auspices of what we actually know works"? Forget relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, evolution. Pretty much all of modern science would not exist. Progress is made again and again by exploring the unknown and coming up with daring hypotheses to test. Rarely, if ever, are major leaps made by clinging to what is already known to be true.
" I think that worrying about extra dimensions,"
Straw man. I never said anything of the sort.
" etc is the equivalent of taking a cubic inch of space in front of your face and trying to communicate with intelligent life there. "
Ridiculing a straw man.
"You have no reason to assume there is life in Gas giants."
Straw man.
"I am not saying that science does not have leaps and bounds ahead of it, but we cant just assume the world will work within the constructs of our fantasies, rather then facts and evidence."
Straw man.
All in all 1 actual argument, that I strongly disagree with, and a whole bunch of straw men.
Oh, and a digg down. (Yes, now I'm assuming things, but the timing and the single digg down make it quite likely that it was you. Do correct me if I'm wrong.) I dugg your first comment by the way. I felt it added to the discussion. I can't say the same about your last one. - inactive, on 07/30/2008, -2/+1⇑ Gayness in the anus above @ InsertAnusHere ⇑
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -3/+1you're gay
- EarlOfLade, on 07/29/2008, -10/+7You have failed to show that this god thing really exists, so far no evidence has been found of said being, so [citation needed]
- Kristijan12, on 07/29/2008, -6/+1Buried for: "this god thing", instead of just god. Since you know what he should be, or he is...
Get my point? -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is