Discussions

I would actually love something like this so that I can monitor my own usage week to week. Am I spending too much time on StackOverflow? Too much time in [game]? This would be awesome for personal use. Plus I can see employers wanting to load up employee machines with this type of tracking as well (which I'm not exactly a fan of).

HumanCompiler said:

An idea that's been popping around in my head for a while...

Would anyone be interested in the Coffeehouse moving to an open source project (initially built by us) that anyone here could contribute to?

I can't make any promises, but thought I'd throw the idea out there to see if anyone would bite.

I agree with the others, that would definitely boost MS's image int he Open Source world. I'd love to see a project like that

Bas said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

So you are, in fact, getting your facts from the media?

Not all media are created equal Sure, they all have their problems, but I tend to trust New Scientist more so than Teen Glamour Likely what Herb is saying is that he doesn't get his facts from what the general-public considers "Media."

Dr Herbie said:

GoddersUK said:

*snip*

++

My interpretation of the NASA article was that they were more open the geological source than the biological source, it's only the uninformed tabloid press that are looking for sensationalism here.

Unfortunately, a lot of people get their 'facts' from the media.


Herbie

C'mon now - doesn't it sound cooler to suggest that brain-sucking martian trimmers are migrating in herds, colonies, whatever, just beneath the surface of Mars!?

GoddersUK said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

Nobody was saying that.

What their saying is that C (Methane) is usually only formed by either A (life) or B (geology). Hence if C is present it is VERY VERY likely that either A or B is.

Neither of witch were thought to be particularly exciting on mars. So either way it's big news.

That and the fact that something was replenishing the methane.

I would agree with you there. Sorry, it seemed that Charles suggest If A then B, B therefore A in his response to BlackTiger. My apologies if that wasn't the case.

Erisan said:

> Why do we need to demonstrate that we are not special?

Personally I think that the question "are we here (in universe) alone?" extremely interesting. Don't you?

> And Another Perspective.

The tone of that article is a ... well, a bit lame . Writer seems to be offended.

> Personally I think that the question "are we here (in universe) alone?"
> extremely interesting. Don't you?

Yes. It is an interesting question. But that isn't the same as, "I can't wait until we prove we're not alone."

> The tone of that article is a ... well, a bit lame . Writer
> seems to be offended.

What part communicated offense? I didn't see any. Only thing I saw was an admission that spectacular claims about life are not foreign. And the common trend is that they typically fizzle out with time. Other than that, they reaffirmed what nasa stated regarding the geologic activities that produce methane as well - something that must be noted when discussing this issue.

And Another Perspective.

littleguru said:

Charles said:

*snip*

Yeah. It kind of comes late. That's also making me wonder if it is really something to be excited about. Also, I think it really has to do with the geologic stuff that's going on and not with little green people that life on the Mars... but I might be wrong.

It would be cool do find life outside of earth. That might finally proof that we are not the center of the universe and it would be also very cool to see what excatly lifes on other planets.

littleguru said:

It would be cool do find life outside of earth. That might finally proof that we are not the center of the universe...

I don't understand the motivation behind this thinking. Why do we need to demonstrate that we are not special? What advantage would that give us? It reminds me of an opinion column in Discover Magazine recently that suggested the Universe was created by a superior intelligence that exists within the Universe, rather than outside of it. It was suggested that this would finally remove any hint of the supernatural. But I've got to ask, why is it our goal to remove the supernatural? Isn't Science supposed to be about gaining understanding in an unbiased manner? Seems like everybody has a goal they want to see Science achieve. They want it to dethrone God apparently. Whatever happened to following the data wherever it leads?

Charles said:

BlackTiger said:

*snip*

Umm... Earth is chalk full of organisms of all shapes and sizes that produce methane as a result of metabolic acitivity. Humans are among them...

The proof is everywhere.
C

Not to be a nuisance, but that's affirming the consequent. If A (life) then B (methane), B therefore A isn't a valid argument. Sure, it makes life probable, but doesn't exactly constitute as proof.

That's all I'll say Well, that, and "Cool! Methane!"

"Tatooine" was one of the first names I saw. Gave it away instantly. Crap man, I want this poster for my office!

Here's another view: