Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution

[Klaus]

@Larry said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Nah. You fell through your own asshole and hung yourself, and nothing will ever get you to see that.

That's already marginally more creative and funnier than just plain "idiot". Very good. Keep going!

[Larry]

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Larry said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Nah. You fell through your own asshole and hung yourself, and nothing will ever get you to see that.

That's already marginally more creative and funnier than just plain "idiot". Very good. Keep going!

Show me where I said a damned thing against science, or where I said something that isn't true, or shut the fuck up.

[Klaus]

@Larry said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Larry said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Nah. You fell through your own asshole and hung yourself, and nothing will ever get you to see that.

That's already marginally more creative and funnier than just plain "idiot". Very good. Keep going!

Show me where I said a damned thing against science, or where I said something that isn't true, or shut the fuck up.

That's a regrettable relapse to a plain STFU. You can do better!

[Jolly]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

How many religious people does it take to build a space telescope?

I look forward to the punchline with enthusiasm.

One.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

I don't want to be in the same box as AOC

Schrodinger's liberal.

We can only determine whether it's Klaus or AOC in there by either opening it, or by poking something into the little breathing hole.

That’s a glory hole. Hope that helps.

[Larry]

@Larry said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

I often wonder if scientists, or for that matter the "if you question any of this then you are a science denier" crowd, ever take the time to actually listen to themselves....

"If you believe that some 'God' just created everything out of nothing in an instant, you're an idiot"
"The universe and everything in it was created by a big bang where nothing exploded into everything"....

"It's ok to kill a baby in the womb because it's not yet life"
"If we can find even a single solitary one celled thing on another planet it will prove life exists on other planets..."

Then there's the notion that we can find life on another planet by looking for pollution.... if the civilization is advanced enough to pollute, it's advanced enough to be looking for life on other planets... yet we've never found even a hint that that has ever happened... alien civilizations are probably advanced well beyond us, able to travel billions of light years by "bending time"..... yet these genius super beings have only ever shown themselves to drunk Bubbas living in trailer parks...... not to mention a civilization so advan ed should have long ago solved the problem of pollution....

"I often wonder is scientists, or for that matter the "if you question any of this you are a science denier" crowd ever take the time to listen to themselves". We now have proof that at least two don't, nor do they actually listen to what anyone else says either. Klaus jumps in trying to paint me as a science denier, all while claiming he didn't, and nunatax thinks I was talking about a telescope.

"If you believe that some 'god' just created everything out of nothing in an instant, you're an idiot." For literally YEARS that is exactly what has been said to me by both you and nunatax, as well as a few others who claim to be "science mibded". The companion sentence - "the universe and everything in it was created by a big bang where nothing exploded into everything" is a literal quote from scientists. But it is beyond Klaus' ability to see the irony ... both say the same thing - boom! And everything that was made was made.... just don't suggest a higher power had anything to do with it.. if you do, the "science minded" will piss themselves because they aren't talking about science any more, you have gored their religion so science be damned.... but you can't point this out to them because they will not understand any of it.

Show me where my acknowledging the scientific theory of the big bang is me denying science. Don't start talking about telescopes or try to derail it into an I suit match - tell me how I'm anti science by acknowledging the scientific theory of the big bang.

"It's ok to kill a baby in the womb because it's not yet life"..... that is EXACTLY what the pro abortion crowd has said for decades... and they have claimed science says so. I didn't make it up, that statement is literally what anti abortion folks have been told for decades, and we were told if we disagreed with that then we were science deniers. The companion we tense, "if we can find even a single cell organism on another planet it is proof is life" is a direct quote from a scientist. I'm not talking about a telescope, I'm quoting a scientist, and I'm doing it to call attention to the co f.icting statements. In the name of science, a baby isn't a living being while it's in the womb - in the name of science, a single cell organism is proof of life. I happen to agree with scientists who say a single cell organism is proof of life. Perhaps Klaus objects to it, and s denying science. Maybe that's what ruffled his feathers. At any rate, I fail to see where my agreeing with scientists that a single cell organism proves the existence of life is an examp,e of me denying science.

No, at every turn I agreed with the scientific view. I don't think K laus even knows what it is he objects to.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

How many religious people does it take to build a space telescope?

I look forward to the punchline with enthusiasm.

One.

I think my enthusiasm may have been a tad premature.

[Nunatax]

@Larry said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

"I often wonder is scientists, or for that matter the "if you question any of this you are a science denier" crowd ever take the time to listen to themselves". We now have proof that at least two don't, nor do they actually listen to what anyone else says either. Klaus jumps in trying to paint me as a science denier, all while claiming he didn't, and nunatax thinks I was talking about a telescope.

We’ll, this thread is about this specific telescope… and you were giving the impression you were ridiculing scientists’ hope of using it to search for intelligent alien life through detecting pollution. That’s what I was responding to…
And you really should set your bar about what you consider as proof of anything, quite a bit higher mate.

"If you believe that some 'god' just created everything out of nothing in an instant, you're an idiot." For literally YEARS that is exactly what has been said to me by both you and nunatax, as well as a few others who claim to be "science mibded". The companion sentence - "the universe and everything in it was created by a big bang where nothing exploded into everything" is a literal quote from scientists. But it is beyond Klaus' ability to see the irony ... both say the same thing - boom! And everything that was made was made.... just don't suggest a higher power had anything to do with it.. if you do, the "science minded" will piss themselves because they aren't talking about science any more, you have gored their religion so science be damned.... but you can't point this out to them because they will not understand any of it.

You can suggest the involvement of a higher power all you want, just don’t expect me to go along with it. It solves nothing and just replaces the problem about where matter comes from to where your higher power comes from.
And that the Big Bang seems similar to your religious creation story is rather lame. First of all, the Big Bang theory does not explain or make any claims about how matter was created from nothing. It is about the early expansion of the universe. Secondly, science and religion have been at odds about the origin of the universe and how it works for centuries. It’s religion which has had to adapt itself to scientific progress, and certainly not the other way around. This apparent little similarity you bring up doesn’t wipe away the long history of religion fighting a lot of the new insights science brought on this topic, so excuse me if I’m not impressed.

Show me where my acknowledging the scientific theory of the big bang is me denying science. Don't start talking about telescopes or try to derail it into an I suit match - tell me how I'm anti science by acknowledging the scientific theory of the big bang.

Good for you that you’re acknowledging the Big Bang theory. Nobody is saying that that makes you a science denier, or that you are one.

"It's ok to kill a baby in the womb because it's not yet life"..... that is EXACTLY what the pro abortion crowd has said for decades... and they have claimed science says so. I didn't make it up, that statement is literally what anti abortion folks have been told for decades, and we were told if we disagreed with that then we were science deniers. The companion we tense, "if we can find even a single cell organism on another planet it is proof is life" is a direct quote from a scientist. I'm not talking about a telescope, I'm quoting a scientist, and I'm doing it to call attention to the co f.icting statements. In the name of science, a baby isn't a living being while it's in the womb - in the name of science, a single cell organism is proof of life. I happen to agree with scientists who say a single cell organism is proof of life. Perhaps Klaus objects to it, and s denying science. Maybe that's what ruffled his feathers. At any rate, I fail to see where my agreeing with scientists that a single cell organism proves the existence of life is an examp,e of me denying science.

No, at every turn I agreed with the scientific view. I don't think K laus even knows what it is he objects to.

There are probably people who make statements like “a baby in a womb is not yet life”. That does not make it a statement adopted by science, or adopted by anyone who responds to you here. Yet you seem to throw anyone who even hints at disagreeing with you here immediately on that same pile.
I’m not from the US, and I don’t know what exactly it is the pro-abortion crowd there is saying. If they say a baby in a womb is not life, then I disagree with them.

[Larry]

@Nunatax said in [Webb Telescope

We’ll, this thread is about this specific telescope… and you were giving the impression you were ridiculing scientists’ hope of using it to search for intelligent alien life through detecting pollution. That’s what I was responding to…
And you really should set your bar about what you consider as proof of anything, quite a bit higher mate.

Let me try to explain this to you again. I'll type slower since you are obviously not very I telligent:

I don't give a fuck that the main topic of the thread is about 'this specific telescope. If I had wanted to talk about 'this specific telescope' I would have said something about the damned telescope. But I didn't. I think the telescope is great. I was talking about the way people like you hide behind a facade of "look at how intelligent I am, I talk about science" and then proceed to say things that are plain stupid.

A fucking 5 year old can see that I was not talking about a telescope, but was talking about people like you. But not you, boy. You decided we could only talk about a telescope, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you from that view, because quite simply, you're a fucking idiot.

So here it is: I was talking about you pseudointillectuals who are incapable of rational thought. I was not then, not now, and won't in the future, be talking about 'this specific telescope or any other telescope.

As for the rest of your stupid rant, thank you for doing exactly what I said you and your ilk does. You have totally proven my point.

[Nunatax]

@Larry said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Nunatax said in [Webb Telescope

We’ll, this thread is about this specific telescope… and you were giving the impression you were ridiculing scientists’ hope of using it to search for intelligent alien life through detecting pollution. That’s what I was responding to…
And you really should set your bar about what you consider as proof of anything, quite a bit higher mate.

Let me try to explain this to you again. I'll type slower since you are obviously not very I telligent:

I don't give a fuck that the main topic of the thread is about 'this specific telescope. If I had wanted to talk about 'this specific telescope' I would have said something about the damned telescope. But I didn't. I think the telescope is great. I was talking about the way people like you hide behind a facade of "look at how intelligent I am, I talk about science" and then proceed to say things that are plain stupid.

A fucking 5 year old can see that I was not talking about a telescope, but was talking about people like you. But not you, boy. You decided we could only talk about a telescope, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you from that view, because quite simply, you're a fucking idiot.

So here it is: I was talking about you pseudointillectuals who are incapable of rational thought. I was not then, not now, and won't in the future, be talking about 'this specific telescope or any other telescope.

As for the rest of your stupid rant, thank you for doing exactly what I said you and your ilk does. You have totally proven my point.

Sheesh dude, be careful, you're gonna give yourself a heart attack!

I simply explained to you why I responded the way I did in my first post, and would have been perfectly happy not hearing from you about "the telescope" again from that point on. So relax and by all means, don't talk about "the telescope" ever again.

And for someone who complains so much about having been called an idiot by someone at some point in some discussion one day, you sure are quick to tell others how low you think their intelligence is. You might want to pick yourself as an example of a contradiction next time, at least it will be a contradiction that makes sense...

[Doctor Phibes]

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

...and circumcision.

[Mik]

And Cincinnati chili.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

...and circumcision.

[Klaus]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

Did you know that the usage of "Control-C" to abort a program goes back to the DEC operating system for the PDP computers and dates back to the 1960s?

Nobody thought about the morality of just aborting operating system processes. And the abortion was not even restricted to processes that were just being launched; any process, even fully matured ones, could be sent the SIGINT signal.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

Did you know that the usage of "Control-C" to abort a program goes back to the DEC operating system for the PDP computers and dates back to the 1960s?

Nobody thought about the morality of just aborting operating system processes. And the abortion was not even restricted to processes that were just being launched; any process, even fully matured ones, could be sent the SIGINT signal.

Once AI-programs are identified as life-forms there's going to be a demand for reparations, and you, my technologically proficient friend, are going to be right at the front of the line.

[Klaus]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

Did you know that the usage of "Control-C" to abort a program goes back to the DEC operating system for the PDP computers and dates back to the 1960s?

Nobody thought about the morality of just aborting operating system processes. And the abortion was not even restricted to processes that were just being launched; any process, even fully matured ones, could be sent the SIGINT signal.

Once AI-programs are identified as life-forms there's going to be a demand for reparations, and you, my technologically proficient friend, are going to be right at the front of the line.

That's not fair. I for one have always argued for the middle ground of making program abortion legal for processes that have consumed less than 3ms of CPU time. Typically, at this point, the process has not yet started any inter-process communication or allocated any persistent data. Arguably, it's not a process yet.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

Did you know that the usage of "Control-C" to abort a program goes back to the DEC operating system for the PDP computers and dates back to the 1960s?

Nobody thought about the morality of just aborting operating system processes. And the abortion was not even restricted to processes that were just being launched; any process, even fully matured ones, could be sent the SIGINT signal.

Once AI-programs are identified as life-forms there's going to be a demand for reparations, and you, my technologically proficient friend, are going to be right at the front of the line.

That's not fair. I for one have always argued for the middle ground of making program abortion legal for processes that have consumed less than 3ms of CPU time. Typically, at this point, the process has not yet started any inter-process communication or allocated any persistent data. Arguably, it's not a process yet.

Your epistemological arguments are unconvincing.

[Mik]

@Klaus said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Webb Telescope might be able to detect other civilizations by their air pollution:

Anyway, getting back to abortion....

Did you know that the usage of "Control-C" to abort a program goes back to the DEC operating system for the PDP computers and dates back to the 1960s?

Nobody thought about the morality of just aborting operating system processes. And the abortion was not even restricted to processes that were just being launched; any process, even fully matured ones, could be sent the SIGINT signal.

I knew that.