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


Log in to reply
 

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