This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Laconicus wrote on 2010-05-11 17:27
And to think, there is where our tax money goes to :thumb:
NASA Spots Signs of Life... On Earth : Discovery News
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-11 17:30
It is a better use of money than the recent wars the US is having, lol.
-
Sleeperdial wrote on 2010-05-11 17:33
No the war is a much better way to spend our taxes than this.
-
Laconicus wrote on 2010-05-11 17:36
Once you read the article it doesn't sound so silly. :B I don't entirely get how knowing that there's bacteria on Antarctica could be useful, but I guess it's good that we have the technology now to know that? xD
-
Drifter wrote on 2010-05-11 17:41
Yeah, it doesn't sound so silly once you read the article, but then again they could have chosen a better title...
-
Iyasenu wrote on 2010-05-11 17:42
lol the title mislead me just a bit xD
but not much...
i'm not sure what the bacteria can do... not completely sure anyways...
but i guess the point is... now our instruments are strong enough to spot such life from outer orbit?
that's kinda neat...
a little futuristic :p
if it can spot bacteria-signs, then i guess it could spot bigger things xD
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-11 17:44
Quote from Laconicus;33419:
Once you read the article it doesn't sound so silly. :B I don't entirely get how knowing that there's bacteria on Antarctica could be useful, but I guess it's good that we have the technology now to know that? xD
When something is first discovered or researched in science, rarely does it become very useful right away. Maybe some time long after its discovery it would be "practical".
-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-05-11 17:46
The article itself is nice. Finding life in those conditions improves the chance of finding life on frozen places in the solar system.
Also, do not eat yellow snow:
[Image: http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef0134808299b0970c-800wi]
-
Chillax wrote on 2010-05-11 18:09
Who would want to travel all the way to Antarctica to look at yellow snow when you can save time and money viewing it from a microscope?
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-11 18:19
Quote from Chillax;33437:
Who would want to travel all the way to Antarctica to look at yellow snow when you can save time and money viewing it from a microscope?
Scientists that are interested in that field?
-
Chillax wrote on 2010-05-11 18:21
Quote from EndlessDreams;33445:
Scientists that are interested in that field?
Scientists are interested in every field. Humans aren't even half-close to figuring out the relationships between everything in the world, so seemingly insignificant things like this are still of some importance. Unless someone decided to dump a bunch of piss for miles.
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-11 18:46
Quote from Chillax;33447:
Scientists are interested in every field. Humans aren't even half-close to figuring out the relationships between everything in the world, so seemingly insignificant things like this are still of some importance. Unless someone decided to dump a bunch of piss for miles.
You are completely wrong. Not every scientists have the same interests. Everyone have their own things that are interesting to them. Scientists are people too, even though some people may think otherwise.
Maybe if you say the whole scientific community is interested in every field, it would make sense because it takes account practically all the scientists. A microbiologist will not have the same research interests as a inorganic polymer chemist even though they are both considered scientists.
It may seem insignificant to you, but it isn't to those certain scientists who studies such things.
-
Chillax wrote on 2010-05-11 19:42
Quote from EndlessDreams;33478:
You are completely wrong. Not every scientists have the same interests. Everyone have their own things that are interesting to them. Scientists are people too, even though some people may think otherwise.
Maybe if you say the whole scientific community is interested in every field, it would make sense because it takes account practically all the scientists. A microbiologist will not have the same research interests as a inorganic polymer chemist even though they are both considered scientists.
It may seem insignificant to you, but it isn't to those certain scientists who studies such things.
Okay, when I said scientists, I meant the whole scientific community in general. No need to write several paragraphs quibbling about my general usage of a word.
-
Moppy wrote on 2010-05-11 20:14
I has question.
I find squirrel in backyard. Is I Nasa?
Thank you.
-
Demeter wrote on 2010-05-11 21:24
Article is much better than its title, read the whole thing first.