Yet Another "Reason" to Curb Greenhouse Emissions



  • "Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists.  Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report"

    Really?!  This is newsworthy?

    Not IT-related, but WTF?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     It's The Guardian. All British "news" sources that aren't the BBC are to be imediately ignored on account of utter stupidity. What the report, assuming one actually exists and they aren't just making shit up, actually said was your typical navel-gazing speculation about what such and such human attribute or activity might mean to a hypothetical outside civilization.



  • @Weng said:

    All British "news" sources that aren't the BBC are to be imediately ignored on account of utter stupidity.

     

    At least you guys have one good source.*  I'm convinced there isn't a single American news source that isn't slanted and/or sensationalist.

     

    *Although, personally, I find the BBC World Service to be liberally biased.  That could just be a reflection of my own bias.



  • @frits said:

    "Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists.  Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report"

    Personally, I don't necessarily buy into this whole global warming thing, but I do consider the idea of being more environmentally responsible to be a Good Thing™. Sure, the outcomes sound like a WTF, but I don't think that the premise is that far off. I think that the premises are valid, and not WTFs themselves.

    @frits said:

    Really?!  This is newsworthy?

    Slow news day?

    @frits said:

    At least you guys have one good source.*  I'm convinced there isn't a single American news source that isn't slanted and/or sensationalist.

    Um, [url=http://theonion.com]The Onion[/url] is a reliable and un-biased news source!



  • The problem is that the British have seemingly 48 newspapers, and whenever you find a story in any of them, some British person chimes up and says, "oh you can't take that seriously, that paper is crap." So either the jig is up, because I've figured out your little scheme, British people, or you actually have 48 daily newspapers, all of which publish bogus news and somehow manage to stay in business. Occam's razor says you're fucking with us.

    See, we Americans have shitty news, but that's because:
    1) Most of it comes from 24-hour news networks, which air mostly shitty news fillers because (natch) there's not 24-hours worth of news in a typical day. (Of course they could spend that air time on things like, say, investigative journalism, but that costs $$$ and it's cheaper to get some partisan blowhard to rant for an hour.)
    2) We have this thing called the "midwest"

    All of our print publications, at least the ones that aren't obvious jokes, make a genuine effort to report actual news. Even the National Enquirer, which is based entirely around reporting the activities rich and stupid celebrities, occasionally breaks a genuinely important story.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The problem is that the British have seemingly 48 newspapers, and whenever you find a story in any of them, some British person chimes up and says, "oh you can't take that seriously, that paper is crap." So either the jig is up, because I've figured out your little scheme, British people, or you actually have 48 daily newspapers, all of which publish bogus news and somehow manage to stay in business. Occam's razor says you're fucking with us.
     

    Or it could be that dumb brits buy newspapers as they are literate, unlike dumb americans.



  • @locallunatic said:

    Or it could be that dumb brits buy newspapers as they are literate, unlike dumb americans.

    I already mentioned the midwest.



  • @frits said:

    Really?!  This is newsworthy?
     

     

    The Guardian decided a while ago that it needed to put more science articles in the on-line version. As a result any press release with the word 'scientist' in it gets picked up and reported on. All it takes is 700 people commenting that it's a stupid article & its popularity getsit on the fornt page.

     It's generally a sensible newspaper, so I thought I'd stick up for it. Not sure what they're playing at here:

     

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/tuscan-monks-diarrhoea-bible-thief 


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @nosliwmas said:

    As a result any press release with the word 'scientist' in it gets picked up and reported on.
    You mean "any press release with the word 'scientist' in it gets picked up on and has the word 'scientist' replaced with 'boffin' as required by UK law"



  •  ObLink: Who reads the papers?

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    The problem is that the British have seemingly 48 newspapers, and whenever you find a story in any of them, some British person chimes up and says, "oh you can't take that seriously, that paper is crap." So either the jig is up, because I've figured out your little scheme, British people, or you actually have 48 daily newspapers, all of which publish bogus news and somehow manage to stay in business. Occam's razor says you're fucking with us.
    No, they really do have 48 of the damned things. How they stay in business is an outright mystery, because none of the Brits I know (and that's a lot - I hang out in some very heavily UKanian corners of the Internet) will admit to reading any of them. Considering the lowest-of-the-low common denominator "reporting" they seem to do and the focus on celebrity, scandal and sensationalism, I suspect that they're read by the underclasses. This is different from the standard US daily model, which has a focus on business and politics and tends to be read by people in office complexes and high-dollar coffee shops.



  • @Weng said:

    I suspect that they're read by the underclasses
     

    Of the national newspapers there are 5 serious ones that largely ignore the celebs and gossip:

    • Financial Times
    • The Telegraph
    • The Times
    • The Independent
    • The Guardian.

    There are 2 papers that sell moral outrage and tits (which is a hard combination to get away with)

    • The Mail
    • The Express

    And there are 3 that happily sell nothing but trash news:

    • The Sun
    • The Star
    • The Mirror

    Any story in the bottom 5 papers is likely to be untrue.

     



  • @nosliwmas said:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/tuscan-monks-diarrhoea-bible-thief 
     

    Now we need someone to observe the thief's state for the next year, maybe two, and you can call it a science experiment!

    I already have a hypothesis.



  • Wouldn't the better strategy for dealing with the threat of alien invasion be unfettered, unregulated enterprise, growth, and technological development so that, by the time they get here from across the stars, their technology will be so antiquated compared to ours that a lone redneck with a laser rifle can blast them out of the sky?

    Also, why would the British worry about this?  Rumors are that Jon Skeet can destroy entire planets with a thought...



  •  I read the Telegraph.  I also read the Guardian sometimes, for amusement.



  • @hoodaticus said:

    Wouldn't the better strategy for dealing with the threat of alien invasion be unfettered, unregulated enterprise, growth, and technological development so that, by the time they get here from across the stars, their technology will be so antiquated compared to ours that a lone redneck with a laser rifle can blast them out of the sky?

    Yeah, but using that stratetegy, the only thing the aliens would find here would be a lone redneck with a laser rifle because humanity would have died out eons ago



  • @nosliwmas said:

    @Weng said:

    I suspect that they're read by the underclasses
     

    Of the national newspapers there are 5 serious ones that largely ignore the celebs and gossip:

    • Financial Times
    • The Telegraph
    • The Times
    • The Independent
    • The Guardian.

    There are 2 papers that sell moral outrage and tits (which is a hard combination to get away with)

    • The Mail
    • The Express

    And there are 3 that happily sell nothing but trash news:

    • The Sun
    • The Star
    • The Mirror

    Any story in the bottom 5 papers is likely to be untrue.

     

     

     

    Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
     
    Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
     
    Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

     



  •  Goddamn fucking@hoodaticus said:

    Wouldn't the better strategy for dealing with the threat of alien invasion be unfettered, unregulated enterprise, growth, and technological development so that, by the time they get here from across the stars, their technology will be so antiquated compared to ours that a lone redneck with a laser rifle can blast them out of the sky?

    Nope, the best defense is a good offense. We just have to advance ourselves to be able to do 3 things:

    1) Detect other emerging civilizations with pinpoint accuracy
    2) Accelerate large rocks to a significant fraction of light speed
    3) Aim those rocks with the same accuracy as #1

    The moment we detect an emerging civilization by, say, their early radio broadcast, we lob few thousand light-speed rocks at them. Even if they advance to the point where they can detect such objects, they'll never be able to stop them. boom no more civilization.

    We have to do that, because one of those emerging civilizations might grow up to see us as a threat, and lob a few thousand light-speed rocks at us. We need to throw rocks at them before they throw rocks at us.

    Unless, since we've been broadcasting our planet's position for about a hundred years now, one of those other civilizations already has. Think about that and sleep tight.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    1) Detect other emerging civilizations with pinpoint accuracy
    2) Accelerate large rocks to a significant fraction of light speed
    3) Aim those rocks with the same accuracy as #1

    Stupid rock!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @locallunatic said:
    Or it could be that dumb brits buy newspapers as they are literate, unlike dumb americans.
    I already mentioned the midwest, of which anyone there is smarter than me.

    FTFY



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Unless, since we've been broadcasting our planet's position for about a hundred years now, one of those other civilizations already has. Think about that and sleep tight.
    According to my interpretation of Genesis, if there are aliens, it is our sacred duty to conquer, dominate, and exploit them, making them scared to death of us along the way.  I don't see how painting a giant target on us helps with that.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

     Goddamn fucking@hoodaticus said:

    Wouldn't the better strategy for dealing with the threat of alien invasion be unfettered, unregulated enterprise, growth, and technological development so that, by the time they get here from across the stars, their technology will be so antiquated compared to ours that a lone redneck with a laser rifle can blast them out of the sky?

    Nope, the best defense is a good offense. We just have to advance ourselves to be able to do 3 things:

    1) Detect other emerging civilizations with pinpoint accuracy
    2) Accelerate large rocks to a significant fraction of light speed
    3) Aim those rocks with the same accuracy as #1

    The moment we detect an emerging civilization by, say, their early radio broadcast, we lob few thousand light-speed rocks at them. Even if they advance to the point where they can detect such objects, they'll never be able to stop them. boom no more civilization.

    We have to do that, because one of those emerging civilizations might grow up to see us as a threat, and lob a few thousand light-speed rocks at us. We need to throw rocks at them before they throw rocks at us.

    Unless, since we've been broadcasting our planet's position for about a hundred years now, one of those other civilizations already has. Think about that and sleep tight.

    And then the giant bug aliens lob a rock that blows up Beunos Ares, and our hero gets his chance to avenge his parents' death... oh, wait, this sounds familiar.



  • @dhromed said:

    @nosliwmas said:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/tuscan-monks-diarrhoea-bible-thief 
     

    Now we need someone to observe the thief's state for the next year, maybe two, and you can call it a science experiment!

    I already have a hypothesis.

    @dhromed said:
    hint: praying doesn't do shit
    I love you (in a purely assexual way).

     



  • @Zecc said:

    I love you (in a purely assexual way).

    Are you talking about loving him like a donkey, or loving his rear end?



  • @ekolis said:

    @Zecc said:

    I love you (in a purely assexual way).

    Are you talking about loving him like a donkey, or loving his rear end?

     

    Obviously he means like a donkey's rear end.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @nosliwmas said:

    <taking what I said seriously>
    Okay, you're lying about being from Manchester. You're not nearly self-deprecating enough to be from Airstrip One.



  •  Yea gotta hate all those nice hardworking (any many actualy are intellegent) people in the midwest! There are rednecks here but there are rednecks in everystate outside of cities. I am really tired of the assholes from the coasts shitting on one of the nicest parts of the country to live in. 



  • @CnC said:

    There are rednecks here but there are rednecks in everystate outside of cities
     

    There are "rednecks" in every country and city, but they go by different names.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CnC said:

    I am really tired of the assholes from the coasts shitting on one of the nicest parts of the country to live in. 
    Nice to live if you don't know any better perhaps, but having been to the midwest, I can tell you that you are wrong.

     

     No, really though, if you guys could just get rid of Ohio, the midwest would be great aside from your positively idiotic politics.



  • @dhromed said:

    I already have a hypothesis.
    I had a hypothesis, too, once. But then my doctor gave me a salve for it, and it's almost gone now.



  • @Weng said:

    No, really though, if you guys could just get rid of Ohio, the midwest would be great aside from your positively idiotic politics.

    People from Maryland shouldn't be allowed to say things like that, except about themselves.



  • @Anonymouse said:

    @dhromed said:

    I already have a hypothesis.
    I had a hypothesis, too, once. But then my doctor gave me a salve for it, and it's almost gone now.

     

    He was a homeopath?

     



  • @Weng said:

    positively idiotic politics.
     

    I gave up on those some time ago. Now I only use negatively idiotic politics.

    Seriously though - I think the greatest failing of politics is assuming that what makes sense in one geographic area makes sense in all geographic areas.  One of the brilliant ideas of the early US was the idea that states could have fairly independent differing policies, so long as they didn't put restrictions on trade and travel between states.  For some reason we've forgotten about that in the past several (or tens) of decades, and now people want the same policies across the entire nation.  It makes it so you can't actually go anywhere to find a place where your personal ideals are met (whatever they are, you're going to have to live somewhere where you have to compromise).

    This observation also applies to places like Europe, or even on smaller scales, such as between counties in a single state.

    Kind of amusing in a sad way, as one of the reasons people started various states in the first place was they wanted a place they could try to have the type of society they wanted, rather than the type someone else imposed on them.  We've lost that ability, and it's kind of sad really.



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    Kind of amusing in a sad way, as one of the reasons people started various states in the first place was they wanted a place they could try to have the type of society they wanted, rather than the type someone else imposed on them.  We've lost that ability, and it's kind of sad really.

    That's because the Federal Government also has the power to protect interstate commerce-- requiring it to have the power to make laws that override State laws. This is fine when you're, for example, legislating the duties for apples shipped from Canada. But it didn't take long for people to realize that if they wanted to pass their pet project in Maine, and the Maine voters weren't going for it, they could do the same thing from a Federal office. Suddenly people started seeing Federal offices as "higher" than State ones, and now we have fucking retarded debates on things like health care when the correct course of option would be, "hey how about California try one system, Texas another, and New York a third, then we can reconnect in 10 years and see which worked better?" But no, actually testing legislation before passing it, using our brilliant system of independent States, that would make too much fucking sense for politicians.



  • Heh, that is because, independently, the States can't seem to afford it! Yet somehow, if the whole nation pitches in, we can? Or something like that. IT MAKES NO SENSE.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    But no, actually testing legislation before passing it, using our brilliant system of independent States, that would make too much fucking sense for politicians.

     

    I like this idea.  It has the bonus of stimulating the economy due to people migrating from terrible states to states that suck less.



  • @frits said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    But no, actually testing legislation before passing it, using our brilliant system of independent States, that would make too much fucking sense for politicians.

    I like this idea.  It has the bonus of stimulating the economy due to people migrating from terrible states to states that suck less.

    Even with today's neutered federalism, there's lots of migration between states, which isn't to say the effect couldn't be bigger.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     blakeyrat for...

     

    Uh, is there a federal office where this opinion could possibly make any difference?



  • @Weng said:

    Uh, is there a federal office where this opinion could possibly make any difference?

    God-Emperor of Dune



  • @dhromed said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    @dhromed said:
    I already have a hypothesis.
    I had a hypothesis, too, once. But then my doctor gave me a salve for it, and it's almost gone now.
    He was a homeopath?
    I don't know. I mean, he was very friendly, but he didn't try to hit on me, so... who knows.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Weng said:
    Uh, is there a federal office where this opinion could possibly make any difference?

    God-Emperor of Dune

    Whenever your ranting gets out of hand, we'd just spritz you with some water.



  • @Weng said:

    Uh, is there a federal office where this opinion could possibly make any difference?

    The Supreme Court is probably the place where a single individual could have the most effect (especially depending on which Justice you replace), though the Presidency still has potential. Sadly, we've generally devolved into believing that everything is Constitutional unless the Court says it isn't.



  • @dhromed said:

    @nosliwmas said:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/tuscan-monks-diarrhoea-bible-thief 
     

    Now we need someone to observe the thief's state for the next year, maybe two, and you can call it a science experiment!

    I already have a hypothesis.

     

    I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work.  Not because God doesn't answer prayers, but because the friars are demonstrating vindictiveness.  In fact, I'd be surprised if it DOES work.  Instead, maybe they should be figuring out the lesson they need to learn.  Oh!  How about locking said rare Bible behind glass when it's not being used to preach??  Put it in a safe??  Novel concepts, indeed!


     



  • @nonpartisan said:

    @dhromed said:

    @nosliwmas said:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/tuscan-monks-diarrhoea-bible-thief 
     

    Now we need someone to observe the thief's state for the next year, maybe two, and you can call it a science experiment!

    I already have a hypothesis.

     

    I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work.  Not because God doesn't answer prayers, but because the friars are demonstrating vindictiveness.  In fact, I'd be surprised if it DOES work.  Instead, maybe they should be figuring out the lesson they need to learn.  Oh!  How about locking said rare Bible behind glass when it's not being used to preach??  Put it in a safe??  Novel concepts, indeed!

    Almost all gods are very vindictives, some of them as society evolved lost that trait but in the case of the judeo christian god if you read the old testament you will see that he was not as mellow as he is today.  So maybe there is a smited burglar somewhere.. or not



  • @serguey123 said:

    So maybe there is a smited burglar somewhere.. or not
     

    Pretty sure a being such as god can completely erase a person from history.



  • @dhromed said:

    Pretty sure a being such as god can completely erase a person from history.

    Until someone sets his time gauntlet to backfire and he erases himself from history and everything goes back to normal and nobody even notices it was wrong in the first place!

    "Excuse me, sir, could I just distract you for a short moment?"



  • @dhromed said:

    @serguey123 said:

    So maybe there is a smited burglar somewhere.. or not
     

    Pretty sure a being such as god can completely erase a person from history.

    Or a revicionist



  • First the Germans now the Japs! If only this reminded me of something... :trolleybus:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @frits said in Yet Another "Reason" to Curb Greenhouse Emissions:

    Although, personally, I find the BBC World Service to be liberally biased.

    BBC? Srsly?

    @frits said in Yet Another "Reason" to Curb Greenhouse Emissions:

    That could just be a reflection of my own bias.

    ^ This.



  • @asdf said in Yet Another "Reason" to Curb Greenhouse Emissions:

    @frits said in Yet Another "Reason" to Curb Greenhouse Emissions:

    Although, personally, I find the BBC World Service to be liberally biased.

    BBC? Srsly?

    @frits said in Yet Another "Reason" to Curb Greenhouse Emissions:

    That could just be a reflection of my own bias.

    ^ This.

    Did you need an excavator to get to this 5 year old post? :P


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.