Coffeehouse Thread

70 posts

When full disclosure regarding Aliens happens, what will you do?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • Dr Herbie

    turrican said:
    Ion Todirel said:
    *snip*

    On a side note, I dislike the term "African-American". America is not about a race of people. It's the country where anyone can go there and fulfill his/her dreams. Once they are there, they are no longer "African-Mexican-Japanese-Chinese"-American anything, but only "Americans". Especially when they are born in that country.

     

    Generation after generation are born in the country, they are no longer "Africans". They are Americans.

     

    The above applies only to American and no other country in the world I think because America was based upon a dream, a dream of being truely free where your rights come from the creator and not the state. The only country in the world where you have creator given rights and not state given rights in the constitution where state can never legalize them away from you.

     

    The only ones who deserve that term are "Native Americans" because they were here first and it was their land.

     

    People don't say chinese-american, japanese-american, mexican-american... irish-american... let us please drop the african-american too and truely become "color blind".

     

    We are ALL just "Americans".

     

    Note : This relpy is not personal and suggest nothing, it is intended only generally about the "African-American" term.

    I would say that because America is such a large place, people relate themselves to sub-cultures within American culture -- hence African-American, Irish-American, Hispanic, etc.

     

    We are still a tribal species, but now we have 'super-tribes' and we may feel like we belong to multiple tribes. I am British, and I'm also a 9er, but I'm definitely not a Goth; that's part of my identity in relation to three tribes.

     

    Herbie

     

  • turrican

    Maddus Mattus said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    I'm not an American,...!

    No no no, I didn't mean "we in here" are all Americans. I was speaking on behalf of americans,...hmm, I think. I'm not american either. hehe. Anyway, my reply wasn't really directed to you or anything.

  • turrican

    Dr Herbie said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    I would say that because America is such a large place, people relate themselves to sub-cultures within American culture -- hence African-American, Irish-American, Hispanic, etc.

     

    We are still a tribal species, but now we have 'super-tribes' and we may feel like we belong to multiple tribes. I am British, and I'm also a 9er, but I'm definitely not a Goth; that's part of my identity in relation to three tribes.

     

    Herbie

     

    Hm, I suppose one could see it in that light too.

  • Ion Todirel

    turrican said:
    Ion Todirel said:
    *snip*

    On a side note, I dislike the term "African-American". America is not about a race of people. It's the country where anyone can go there and fulfill his/her dreams. Once they are there, they are no longer "African-Mexican-Japanese-Chinese"-American anything, but only "Americans". Especially when they are born in that country.

     

    Generation after generation are born in the country, they are no longer "Africans". They are Americans.

     

    The above applies only to American and no other country in the world I think because America was based upon a dream, a dream of being truely free where your rights come from the creator and not the state. The only country in the world where you have creator given rights and not state given rights in the constitution where state can never legalize them away from you.

     

    The only ones who deserve that term are "Native Americans" because they were here first and it was their land.

     

    People don't say chinese-american, japanese-american, mexican-american... irish-american... let us please drop the african-american too and truely become "color blind".

     

    We are ALL just "Americans".

     

    Note : This relpy is not personal and suggest nothing, it is intended only generally about the "African-American" term.

    > On a side note, I dislike the term "African-American"

     

    Sorry, I didn't know what other term I could use in that context, by any means I didn't want it to sound insulting to anyone. If you know a better term please let me know and I'll update my post.

  • turrican

    Ion Todirel said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    > On a side note, I dislike the term "African-American"

     

    Sorry, I didn't know what other term I could use in that context, by any means I didn't want it to sound insulting to anyone. If you know a better term please let me know and I'll update my post.

    I think just "American" fits just fine, but again, it's nothing personal or a big deal. I was just thinking out loud basically.

    Thank you,

    Smiley

  • justth3fax

    turrican said:
    justth3fax said:
    *snip*

    You will owe me one beer if it happens withing 3 years.

     

    - Day 2.

    Agreed - day 3

  • ScanIAm

    JeremyJ said:
    ScanIAm said:
    *snip*

    Once upon a time someone would have called you crazy for suggesting that we could cut through steel with a beam of light.  Your opinion is very short-sighted.

    OK, so this is a response to both you and Charles.

     

    I'll admit, like a good believer in science, that we can't know, for sure that it is impossible.  The evidence of observation is on my side, however.  If the LHC results in tachyons, then I'll change my opinion, but I'm not entirely sure they are actually looking for them.  Outside of theoretical physics, and by theoretical, I mean that these results only exist when we do the math, they've never been observed; nothing travels faster than light.  And tachyons always travel faster than light. 

     

    And if we find tachyons, and therefore confirm that one more piece of our mathematical theory of how the universe works is accurate, then we'd better be ready for much more worrysome stuff than meeting aliens.  Again, I'll give a loophole if we figure out how to tame tachyons.

     

    If we stick with the way that physics works in the observable universe, the idea of a bussard ramjet would theoretically allow us (or them) to travel between the stars approaching lightspeed, but again, we don't know what the 'in-between' consists of, and outside of the heliosphere seems to have had a lethal effect on the one voyager that made it so far. 

     

    If we do come up with a way to travel this way, then we're faced with 'where to go'.  Our observable sphere is way small.  We do get incoming light from millions of millions of years ago, but there is no guarantee that when we arrive the system we've targetted will even exist...nova's and such.  So we'll have to be willing to mount a resource intensive blind mission to a system that may or may not have been obliterated and we'll have to do so at great expense.

     

    The aliens will face the same prospects, and so why would they do this?  The costs are enormous, and the returns are non-existant.  Even if they send an envoy from the closest star to us, we 'trade' and then they return, the round-trip time would be tremendous.  I've been accused of being anthropomorphic, and perhaps it is true, but any society that would fling ships out to potentially populated planets is never going to reap the results.  Their only purpose for doing so would be for colonization, and that colonization would be one way.  Why would a society/planet/solar system spend that kind of energy for no results?

     

    Again, I could be wrong, but I'll stand by my sad belief that we'll never be visited by aliens.

  • Sven Groot

    ScanIAm said:
    JeremyJ said:
    *snip*

    OK, so this is a response to both you and Charles.

     

    I'll admit, like a good believer in science, that we can't know, for sure that it is impossible.  The evidence of observation is on my side, however.  If the LHC results in tachyons, then I'll change my opinion, but I'm not entirely sure they are actually looking for them.  Outside of theoretical physics, and by theoretical, I mean that these results only exist when we do the math, they've never been observed; nothing travels faster than light.  And tachyons always travel faster than light. 

     

    And if we find tachyons, and therefore confirm that one more piece of our mathematical theory of how the universe works is accurate, then we'd better be ready for much more worrysome stuff than meeting aliens.  Again, I'll give a loophole if we figure out how to tame tachyons.

     

    If we stick with the way that physics works in the observable universe, the idea of a bussard ramjet would theoretically allow us (or them) to travel between the stars approaching lightspeed, but again, we don't know what the 'in-between' consists of, and outside of the heliosphere seems to have had a lethal effect on the one voyager that made it so far. 

     

    If we do come up with a way to travel this way, then we're faced with 'where to go'.  Our observable sphere is way small.  We do get incoming light from millions of millions of years ago, but there is no guarantee that when we arrive the system we've targetted will even exist...nova's and such.  So we'll have to be willing to mount a resource intensive blind mission to a system that may or may not have been obliterated and we'll have to do so at great expense.

     

    The aliens will face the same prospects, and so why would they do this?  The costs are enormous, and the returns are non-existant.  Even if they send an envoy from the closest star to us, we 'trade' and then they return, the round-trip time would be tremendous.  I've been accused of being anthropomorphic, and perhaps it is true, but any society that would fling ships out to potentially populated planets is never going to reap the results.  Their only purpose for doing so would be for colonization, and that colonization would be one way.  Why would a society/planet/solar system spend that kind of energy for no results?

     

    Again, I could be wrong, but I'll stand by my sad belief that we'll never be visited by aliens.

    I'm still holding out for warp drive or wormholes, both of which are theoretically possible within the framework of general relativity. Smiley

  • turrican

    ScanIAm said:
    JeremyJ said:
    *snip*

    OK, so this is a response to both you and Charles.

     

    I'll admit, like a good believer in science, that we can't know, for sure that it is impossible.  The evidence of observation is on my side, however.  If the LHC results in tachyons, then I'll change my opinion, but I'm not entirely sure they are actually looking for them.  Outside of theoretical physics, and by theoretical, I mean that these results only exist when we do the math, they've never been observed; nothing travels faster than light.  And tachyons always travel faster than light. 

     

    And if we find tachyons, and therefore confirm that one more piece of our mathematical theory of how the universe works is accurate, then we'd better be ready for much more worrysome stuff than meeting aliens.  Again, I'll give a loophole if we figure out how to tame tachyons.

     

    If we stick with the way that physics works in the observable universe, the idea of a bussard ramjet would theoretically allow us (or them) to travel between the stars approaching lightspeed, but again, we don't know what the 'in-between' consists of, and outside of the heliosphere seems to have had a lethal effect on the one voyager that made it so far. 

     

    If we do come up with a way to travel this way, then we're faced with 'where to go'.  Our observable sphere is way small.  We do get incoming light from millions of millions of years ago, but there is no guarantee that when we arrive the system we've targetted will even exist...nova's and such.  So we'll have to be willing to mount a resource intensive blind mission to a system that may or may not have been obliterated and we'll have to do so at great expense.

     

    The aliens will face the same prospects, and so why would they do this?  The costs are enormous, and the returns are non-existant.  Even if they send an envoy from the closest star to us, we 'trade' and then they return, the round-trip time would be tremendous.  I've been accused of being anthropomorphic, and perhaps it is true, but any society that would fling ships out to potentially populated planets is never going to reap the results.  Their only purpose for doing so would be for colonization, and that colonization would be one way.  Why would a society/planet/solar system spend that kind of energy for no results?

     

    Again, I could be wrong, but I'll stand by my sad belief that we'll never be visited by aliens.

    It could even be the only reason they built LHC. I doubt they would put these kinds of large sums of money in Europe just to test simple stuff. There must be something more to it than what they are telling the public.

     

    Already, the public are afraid of blackholes from LHC. Imagine if they told the REAL reason why LHC is built, whatever that is, I doubt it's what they told the public.

     

    I also think that there is certainly "somthing military" about LHC. They don't usually put money on huge projects unless military applications are involved somewhere in there.

  • Dr Herbie

    turrican said:
    ScanIAm said:
    *snip*

    It could even be the only reason they built LHC. I doubt they would put these kinds of large sums of money in Europe just to test simple stuff. There must be something more to it than what they are telling the public.

     

    Already, the public are afraid of blackholes from LHC. Imagine if they told the REAL reason why LHC is built, whatever that is, I doubt it's what they told the public.

     

    I also think that there is certainly "somthing military" about LHC. They don't usually put money on huge projects unless military applications are involved somewhere in there.

    I think you should watch fewer films.

     

    Herbie

     

  • turrican

    Dr Herbie said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    I think you should watch fewer films.

     

    Herbie

     

    nooooooo... haha, I'm just finishing Farscape, next stop is V... and YES; I'm done watching X-files too.

     

    On a serious note, many ( most ) of the scientific tools we have today are thanks to military projects, no? I mean, do you think they made the cellphone and computers to help humanity?

    Smiley

  • Ian2

    turrican said:
    Ian2 said:
    *snip*

    The question is, would they really be like the ones from "Aliens"? My guess they wouldn't be much different from us in terms of, they would most likely need to have arms and legs to move around. Eyes... nose... hm, or maybe they are cyborg organisms.

     

    Hm... or maybe just completely robotic, having already killing off their "creator race". haha... now THAT would scare the heck out of me.

    Yes, but Sigourney covers us in both camps (ie the nice blue ones as well)

  • exoteric

    Maddus Mattus said:
    W3bbo said:
    *snip*

    From birth we learn to distinguish features from our own "kind". This is a natural proces. That's why all Chinese people look alike to us and why we all look alike to them. They learned to look at features that sets them apart, those features are not present in the western people. So to them, we all look alike.

     

    It might be that to the untrained eye, all aliens in Star Trek look alike. But if you watched enough episodes you will learn to distinguish the small features.

     

    Oh, not all Klingons are warriors, not all Romulans are bastards and not all Ferengi suck Smiley

     

    Back on topic;

     

    E.T. does exist and he is intelligent. That's exactly the reason they havent contacted us yet.

     

    We, as a human race, need a lesson in humility. We think we can set everything to our hand. Mold the planet (destroy the planet for that matter) so to speak. But in the grand scale, we are not even as important as a flea on a fly on the back of a dog. And I think, when we've come to accept that E.T. will show up.

    E.T. does exist and he is intelligent. That's exactly the reason they havent contacted us yet.
    We, as a human race, need a lesson in humility.

    The first lesson in humility: don't assume you know with certainty what is and isn't out there. The second lesson: don't assume aliens would not find it interesting to study us in a similar fashion that humans study animals and insects. At least don't assume all "potential" alien species to have that point of view.

  • Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    turrican said:
    Dr Herbie said:
    *snip*

    nooooooo... haha, I'm just finishing Farscape, next stop is V... and YES; I'm done watching X-files too.

     

    On a serious note, many ( most ) of the scientific tools we have today are thanks to military projects, no? I mean, do you think they made the cellphone and computers to help humanity?

    Smiley

    Bad example.  Cell phones were invented for civilian use (cell phones require infrastructure, which isn't exactly something you're going to have on the battlefield; point-to-point radios are better there).  Likewise, modern computing originates largely from the manufacturing sector (with punch-card automated looms and the like) and from telecommunications (Bell Labs and the like).

     

    A lot of technology does originate from military uses, but I'd hazard to say that it's not even the majority.

  • W3bbo

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    Bad example.  Cell phones were invented for civilian use (cell phones require infrastructure, which isn't exactly something you're going to have on the battlefield; point-to-point radios are better there).  Likewise, modern computing originates largely from the manufacturing sector (with punch-card automated looms and the like) and from telecommunications (Bell Labs and the like).

     

    A lot of technology does originate from military uses, but I'd hazard to say that it's not even the majority.

    Well, it was directly because of World War II that computers saw massive development (e.g. ENIAC and Colossus) and the Cold War gave rise to the Internet.

     

    I think it can be said that military interest in computing spurred and accelerated its growth; even if there was no WW2 or Cold War I think we would still have an Internet like we have today, except it would have been born out of the university networks.

     

    Most of the innovation we take for granted today was created by civilians, like the transistor.

     

    BTW Jonathon, you haven't been on Messenger lately. Pray tell why?

  • Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    W3bbo said:
    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    *snip*

    Well, it was directly because of World War II that computers saw massive development (e.g. ENIAC and Colossus) and the Cold War gave rise to the Internet.

     

    I think it can be said that military interest in computing spurred and accelerated its growth; even if there was no WW2 or Cold War I think we would still have an Internet like we have today, except it would have been born out of the university networks.

     

    Most of the innovation we take for granted today was created by civilians, like the transistor.

     

    BTW Jonathon, you haven't been on Messenger lately. Pray tell why?

    That's true...  military interest definitely accelerated computing's growth.  There was still substantial civilian interest in computing, too, even prior to WWI

     

    As to not being on Messenger:  there's no particular reason, except that I've never really gotten into the habit of starting my IM client when I get on the computer....  Need to set it up to launch on startup, probably.  I'll make a point to get on this afternoon after work Wink

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.