If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Scientist are 99% sure we are the aliens   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, Theoretical Biologist Richard Gordon, university library, increases exponentially, scientific evidence, TechNewsDaily  
•       •       •

17509 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Apr 2013 at 6:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-19 01:57:44 AM
We aren't the aliens, we're just the success story in the garbage heap of the universe.
 
2013-04-19 02:55:28 AM
Moore's Law is simple curve fitting, unlikely to apply elsewhere or to remain constant. So there.
 
2013-04-19 03:51:57 AM
Yeah, only if your extrapolation is based only on data points that fit it and ignores all those that would muck it up (like the lungfish, the pufferfish, the ameboid  Polychaos dubium, and many many more). The arxiv.org paper is a pile of garbage, and Sharov and Gordon are off their rockers.

Seriously, look at the figure in their paper and see how ridiculous it is. Then read the paper and either groan or laugh or both.
 
2013-04-19 06:16:36 AM
i0.kym-cdn.com
/oblig
 
2013-04-19 07:24:13 AM
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-04-19 07:24:33 AM
This is supposed to be new? Panspermia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia  has been around for decades.
 
2013-04-19 07:29:25 AM

Unknown_Poltroon: Panspermia


Isn't that what Peter North does on occasion?
 
2013-04-19 07:29:48 AM
FTFA: Sharov and Gordon's idea raises other intriguing possibilities. For one, "life before earth" debunks the long-held science-fiction trope of the scientifically advanced alien species. If genetic complexity progresses at a steady rate, then the social and scientific development of any other alien life form in the Milky Way galaxy would be roughly equivalent to those of humans.

This may be the dumbest thing I've read all morning. And I just got finished browsing FSTDT.
 
2013-04-19 07:39:27 AM
I prefer the "We are Martians" theory that life here hitched a ride on a chunk of Mars that was blown off when a massive asteroid struck it. Sort of like the movie "Mission to Mars", only accidental instead of deliberate.
 
2013-04-19 07:40:31 AM

Unknown_Poltroon: This is supposed to be new? Panspermia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia  has been around for decades.


Yep.  And it has also been used as "proof" of intellegent design for almost as long.
 
GBB [TotalFark]
2013-04-19 07:45:03 AM
Moore's Law describes the rate of technological progression, not a natural evolution.  Unless these scientists are trying to say that all life on earth was engineered.
 
2013-04-19 07:46:10 AM

Martian_Astronomer: FTFA: Sharov and Gordon's idea raises other intriguing possibilities. For one, "life before earth" debunks the long-held science-fiction trope of the scientifically advanced alien species. If genetic complexity progresses at a steady rate, then the social and scientific development of any other alien life form in the Milky Way galaxy would be roughly equivalent to those of humans.

This may be the dumbest thing I've read all morning. And I just got finished browsing FSTDT.


Yeah, that bears repeating
 
2013-04-19 07:55:29 AM
FTA: Moore's Law is the observation that computers increase exponentially in complexity, at a rate of about double the transistors per integrated circuit every two years.

That's as wishy washy as hell, and it uses a unit of time based on our planet in our solar system.

A pattern has been noticed between 1960 and now. They've used that 50 year data set to EXTRAPOLATE BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF TIME. They've also assumed life evolves at the same rate as computer power.

I really hare how science is being over run by attention whores. Seems like a noticebale trend that is picking up speed.
 
2013-04-19 07:55:41 AM
We were created to mine gold.
 
2013-04-19 07:56:48 AM
Staff Scientist Alexei Sharov of the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore

There's an entire institute that studies aging in Baltimore?  Is it that bad to grow old in B'more?
 
2013-04-19 07:59:26 AM
Call it a thought exercise or an essay, rather than a theory, Sharov said. 
...
For one, "life before earth" debunks the long-held science-fiction trope of the scientifically advanced alien species.
...
Sharov said that if he had to bet on it, he'd say "it's 99 percent true that life started before Earth - but we should leave 1 percent for some wild chance that we haven't accounted for."


So it is a thought experiment with lots of unprovable hypotheticals at the start so they don't have to find any proof to support it, and then suddenly it debunks other equally hypothetical ideas, and then to finish off they talk about a completely different concept - that life has happened elsewhere before the first life started on earth, which of course is almost certain considering the size and age of the universe, but that of course doesn't mean that any of that life that started elsewhere has ended up here.
 
2013-04-19 08:04:02 AM

Huggermugger: Staff Scientist Alexei Sharov of the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore

There's an entire institute that studies aging in Baltimore?  Is it that bad to grow old in B'more?


There must be alot of crabby people in Baltimore.
 
2013-04-19 08:06:13 AM
Man, they got bored and read some sci-fi authors then tried to confirm it didn't they
 
2013-04-19 08:10:10 AM
images.persephonemagazine.com

all of this has happened before and it will happpen again, again, again...
 
2013-04-19 08:10:25 AM
Those guys are not real scientists in the classical sense and the original paper is philosophically-inspired bullshiat underpinned by conjecture in the total absence of an actual working model that could be used to meaningfully determine how genetic complexity changes over time. So, no.
 
2013-04-19 08:18:44 AM
Scientists have obviously met my co-workers.
 
2013-04-19 08:19:45 AM
What a total pile of garbage trying to pass itself off as science...

I can't wait to get to work and deal with my tardbucket fundie coworkers. Here's for hoping the Yahoo "Science" tab scares 'em away.
 
2013-04-19 08:19:53 AM
I'm from Gliese 581c, so I'm getting a kick...
 
2013-04-19 08:20:01 AM

This About That: Moore's Law is simple curve fitting, unlikely to apply elsewhere or to remain constant. So there.


Well they aren't really using Moore's Law anyways, they are simply plotting a curve for known # of genes per year. If you plot the curve for the known points and follow it back it leads to about 10 billion years. The big problem is we simply have too few datapoints to form a reliable curve.
 
2013-04-19 08:25:12 AM

kbronsito: [images.persephonemagazine.com image 300x161]

all of this has happened before and it will happpen again, again, again...


See you on the Other Side...
 
2013-04-19 08:28:13 AM
Scientists a couple cranks are 99% sure we are the aliens

More like it.
 
2013-04-19 08:34:04 AM

GBB: Moore's Law describes the rate of technological progression, not a natural evolution.  Unless these scientists are trying to say that all life on earth was engineered.


They've been watching too many Ridley Scott flicks.
 
2013-04-19 08:39:47 AM
This makes sense to me.  It's entirely probably and if I'm guessing it's probably true.  Is it more likely that life first came in to being here or that it came here as a natural "pollination" (for lack of a better word) of life in the universe?  Of course there's no evidence to support these claims but less logical arguments have been made and believed.
 
2013-04-19 08:41:44 AM
Bunch of morans commenting who didn't read the whole article...they were salivating at the chance to be a critic after the first paragraph...bunch of pseudo intellectuals in here...
 
2013-04-19 08:45:10 AM
This assumes that a) genome length is a reasonable measure of genome complexity, b) their filtering for "useful" DNA maps accurately to complexity.

The very fact that they eliminate "redundant" DNA makes me very suspicious of the whole thing. The _right_ way to do this is to take the entire genome and measure its entropy. Entropy * length = total information content.
 
2013-04-19 08:53:21 AM

jjwars1: Bunch of morans commenting who didn't read the whole article..


I didn't RTFA, but I did RTFpaper. The scientists behind this aren't claiming anything other than an interesting statistical quirk.
 
2013-04-19 08:58:26 AM
Science fiction is right again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iJ6mLb8r00
 
2013-04-19 09:01:13 AM
No.

If life here didn't originate here, then it's much less likely that our rise to intelligence and cognizance was purely evolutionary so to suggest it happened is to suggest direct extra-terrestrial interference. Which is a legitimate theory, there just isn't any farking evidence to support it.

And we weren't seeded by an asteroid at random because the odds of that hitting a planet capable of developing anything would be nill.

I'm going to go with C) we developed here via evolution and applying Moore's Law to evolutionary development is beyond retarded.

The mechanisms behind technological development are intentional and directed designs.

The mechanisms behind evolution are adaptation via chaotic and random mutations that further successful survival and reproductive odds.

It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples to internal combustion engines.
 
2013-04-19 09:04:37 AM

Deep Contact: We were created to mine gold.



The Anunnaki are dicks. Send in the Marines to kick their asses.
 
2013-04-19 09:05:56 AM

MurphyMurphy: If life here didn't originate here, then it's much less likely that our rise to intelligence and cognizance was purely evolutionary


That's not true at all.
 
2013-04-19 09:10:58 AM

MurphyMurphy: And we weren't seeded by an asteroid at random because the odds of that hitting a planet capable of developing anything would be nill.


That's not true at all.
 
2013-04-19 09:12:46 AM

MurphyMurphy: I'm going to go with C) we developed here via evolution and applying Moore's Law to evolutionary development is beyond retarded.


On the other hand: ding ding ding ding ding -- a WINNER!
 
2013-04-19 09:20:20 AM

t3knomanser: MurphyMurphy: If life here didn't originate here, then it's much less likely that our rise to intelligence and cognizance was purely evolutionary

That's not true at all.


OhioKnight: MurphyMurphy: And we weren't seeded by an asteroid at random because the odds of that hitting a planet capable of developing anything would be nill.

That's not true at all.


Sorry, I was assuming we wanted to consider things that were remotely possible.
 
2013-04-19 09:24:17 AM
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html

Life was made in space, we already have the model for it.  Nothing new to see here.
 
2013-04-19 09:24:24 AM

t3knomanser: jjwars1: Bunch of morans commenting who didn't read the whole article..

I didn't RTFA, but I did RTFpaper. The scientists behind this aren't claiming anything other than an interesting statistical quirk.


Extra credit for you. This sentiment was expressed in TFA, too, for the ignorant or lazy to read. But anyways, I'm gonna go pretend outrage and cynicism in another thread now.
 
2013-04-19 09:24:44 AM
This paper is making the rounds, which sucks, because the paper is TERRIBLE.  It's not been peer reviewed and is essentially self-published.  "Scientists" no more believe this than they do TimeCube.  It's complete bullshiat.
 
2013-04-19 09:43:45 AM
We need to build a big fence around Earth to keep the illegal aliens out.
 
2013-04-19 09:47:32 AM
scifimafia.com

GBB: Moore's Law describes the rate of technological progression, not a natural evolution.  Unless these scientists are trying to say that all life on earth was engineered.


Not Gordon Moore, Ronald D. Moore.
 
2013-04-19 09:47:40 AM
Just visiting this planet.
 
2013-04-19 09:48:35 AM

MurphyMurphy: Sorry, I was assuming we wanted to consider things that were remotely possible.


That's not what you said.

You claimed that panspermia makes evolution less likely. That's false. Panspermia has no impact on the process of evolution, it simply moves the origin point in space.

You claimed that an asteroid, at random, was highly unlikely to strike a planet, which is only true for relatively short periods of time. The odds of an asteroid falling into a stable orbit are also very low- yet we have many asteroids in stable orbits. And when we're talking in terms of protoplanetary disks, the odds of an asteroid joining a planet are very good- that's how planets are made, after all. Life on Earth started  very quickly- only a few hundred million years after Earth solidified, before the planet was even cool. In this era, collisions were  very common.
 
2013-04-19 09:49:32 AM
Well this ET wants to go home.
 
2013-04-19 10:16:45 AM
Where did the mass for big bang come from?
where did god(s) come from?
how is there no beginning and no end of physical universe?
why is soap slippery when wet?
Since no one can show that, then let's look forward and forget the distant past and the unverifiable to future generations of borg, ere, humans.
 
2013-04-19 10:25:49 AM
came for the global warming correlation

/leaving strangely satisfied
 
2013-04-19 10:29:17 AM

swangoatman: Where did the mass for big bang come from?


From the singularity that triggered the big bang.

swangoatman: where did god(s) come from?


Human imagination.

swangoatman: how is there no beginning and no end of physical universe?


Who says there isn't? We know that spacetime and the universe as we know it started with the Big Bang, so we know there is a beginning. We have several plausible models for its end.

swangoatman: why is soap slippery when wet?


Soap molecules have a hydrophilic side (water loving) and a lipophilic side (fat loving). The end result of this is that they cluster into miniature ball-bearings with the hydrophilic side facing out. The "bearings" can slide and roll around, and attract water to themselves for lubrication.
 
2013-04-19 10:44:07 AM
Alright make up your mind did we evolve from chimps or were we intellegently designed by Aliens that a primative screwhead may have called a god?
 
2013-04-19 10:46:57 AM
Not to mention how different life has formed and how life has survived multiple planet wide extinctions. (Snowball Earth, Meteor strikes)

Not a scientist but I thought environment had more to do with the evolution of life over Moore's law.
 
2013-04-19 10:47:25 AM

Oldiron_79: did we evolve from chimps


Well, we definitely didn't evolve from chimps, though we have a common ancestor.
 
2013-04-19 11:19:16 AM

swangoatman: Where did the mass for big bang come from?

t3knomanser: From the singularity that triggered the big bang.


From what I can make out, the current model instead says the mass for the big bang came from the big bang's producing the space to put mass in... with the Higgs field somehow playing a role.

If you're actually interested in this sort of question, I suggest stopping by a local college physics department, find a PhD candidate, and offer to buy them beer while they try and explain it to you. You may not really learn all that much, but it's usually entertaining.
 
2013-04-19 11:24:02 AM
 and the results suggest organic life first came into existence long before Earth itself

That, or something that is more a rule of thumb for technology than a scientifically verified law of nature really doesn't apply to biological systems.
 
2013-04-19 11:27:30 AM
Big Ramifications: I really hare how science is being over run by attention whores. Seems like a noticebale trend that is picking up speed.

Seems like it's doubling roughly every two years.
 
2013-04-19 11:27:43 AM
static.guim.co.uk
Has some pretty solid theories on this matter as well...
 
2013-04-19 11:32:15 AM
You won't like your alien overlords once they show up
 
2013-04-19 11:44:01 AM

abb3w: From what I can make out, the current model instead says the mass for the big bang came from the big bang's producing the space to put mass in... with the Higgs field somehow playing a role.


Well, I should rephrase. The  matterin the universe came from the singularity. The  mass the matter has arises from the Higgs field.
 
2013-04-19 11:46:59 AM
I need to submit my paper to Nature on the approximately 6 year evolution of the 8-legged octopus from the 1-footed sea slug.
 
2013-04-19 12:19:01 PM

t3knomanser: swangoatman: Where did the mass for big bang come from?

From the singularity that triggered the big bang.

swangoatman: where did god(s) come from?

Human imagination.

swangoatman: how is there no beginning and no end of physical universe?

Who says there isn't? We know that spacetime and the universe as we know it started with the Big Bang, so we know there is a beginning. We have several plausible models for its end.

swangoatman: why is soap slippery when wet?

Soap molecules have a hydrophilic side (water loving) and a lipophilic side (fat loving). The end result of this is that they cluster into miniature ball-bearings with the hydrophilic side facing out. The "bearings" can slide and roll around, and attract water to themselves for lubrication.


DAMN---are you --- a wizard?
 
2013-04-19 12:21:51 PM

abb3w: swangoatman: Where did the mass for big bang come from?
t3knomanser: From the singularity that triggered the big bang.

From what I can make out, the current model instead says the mass for the big bang came from the big bang's producing the space to put mass in... with the Higgs field somehow playing a role.

If you're actually interested in this sort of question, I suggest stopping by a local college physics department, find a PhD candidate, and offer to buy them beer while they try and explain it to you. You may not really learn all that much, but it's usually entertaining.


I was a regular correspondent with Clifford Stole. After much time ---he said " the answer can be found in his Klien Bottle for $59.00" he is a Fraggle you know.
 
2013-04-19 12:35:18 PM
FTA: "Human evolution doesn't just occur in the genome; it occurs epigenetically, or within the mind, as technology, language and cultural memory all become more complex."

I ain't buyin' it. The point of evolution is that it's a physical process of organisms changing from physical one form into another. People who talk like the above just don't want to face the fact that H. sapiens is not the endpoint of evolution, that there will eventually be "higher" species than us. And they might not even come from human stock: remember that us mammals, who inherited the Earth from the dinosaurs, started out as tiny mousy insect eaters. Imagine if the next "intelligent" species to arise developed from bedbugs or hermit crabs.
 
2013-04-19 01:33:30 PM

The One True TheDavid: FTA: "Human evolution doesn't just occur in the genome; it occurs epigenetically, or within the mind, as technology, language and cultural memory all become more complex."

I ain't buyin' it. The point of evolution is that it's a physical process of organisms changing from physical one form into another. People who talk like the above just don't want to face the fact that H. sapiens is not the endpoint of evolution, that there will eventually be "higher" species than us. And they might not even come from human stock: remember that us mammals, who inherited the Earth from the dinosaurs, started out as tiny mousy insect eaters. Imagine if the next "intelligent" species to arise developed from bedbugs or hermit crabs.


Well, what the article says is sort of right.  Technology, language and culture all combine to help modify the definition of "strong" when it comes to reproductive fitness.  Things that would define you as unfit a century ago might not mark you as such today because such challenges can be overcome by technology and/or social cooperation.  Things that marked you as fit may not give any advantage anymore, as the advantage can be given to all through the use of technology.  Being big and strong would help you plow a field.  Now a tractor can allow the smallest weakest person to plow a field.  Being big and strong may still be a reproductive advantage, but nowhere near what it used to be.  Susceptible to disease?  Back in the day, your line would die out.  Now, just pop a pill and your reproductive weakness disappears.

Modern technology has greatly altered the evolutionary path of humans.  That doesn't mean it necessarily a good thing though.  We could reach a point (if not there already) where in the absence of this technology we'd go extinct.  A huge solar flare, nuclear war, anything to render our technology useless and we'd be screwed.  But many animals face this sort of thing.  Evolve to be too good of a killer?  You use up your food supply and go extinct.  Evolve to be in perfect symbiosis with your environment?  Great, as long as your environment never changes (which they always do).  Evolved a perfect protective shell to keep you safe from predators?  Great, but now you're too slow to migrate or to follow your food source.  Sometimes what can be a good evolutionary change in the short run turns out to be a death sentence in the long run.
 
2013-04-19 02:02:12 PM

stonicus: Modern technology has greatly altered the evolutionary path of humans.


I don't think "altered" is the right word. The human evolutionary path is one  of technology. We are tool users. Like pretty much any other species, all the way down to the lowliest bacterium, we take steps to alter our environment to benefit us. We're exceptionally good at it, at least by the standards of primates. Compared to bacteria, we're farking awful at it. This is their planet, we just provide them with a valuable ecosystem.

stonicus: We could reach a point (if not there already) where in the absence of this technology we'd go extinct.


Which technology? There are pockets of humanity who have no technology more advanced than pointy sticks. Humans won't go extinct without a massive climate change- drop a dinosaur-killer asteroid on us, then I'll worry about the genetic future of humanity.Because it's not a reproductive weakness- there's a pill that
 
2013-04-19 02:18:50 PM
You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.
 
2013-04-19 02:58:55 PM

Lsherm: We aren't the aliens, we're just the success story in the garbage heap of the universe.


Nah, we just haven't run into our neighbors yet.
 
2013-04-19 03:06:18 PM
latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com
graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-04-19 03:51:24 PM

MurphyMurphy: And we weren't seeded by an asteroid at random because the odds of that hitting a planet capable of developing anything would be nill.


How was babby er planet formed? You must be unaware of the Late Heavy Bombardment. :)
That said, evolution does not seem to follow Moore's Law. They are carting before the horse.

That makes the horse indignant.
 
2013-04-19 03:55:28 PM

Lsherm: We aren't the aliens, we're just the success story in the garbage heap of the universe.


This view seems intensely provincial
 
2013-04-19 03:57:54 PM
It's good to see clear evidence that lots and lots of degrees does not in any way preclude you from being really, really stupid.
 
2013-04-19 04:08:13 PM

hitlersbrain: It's good to see clear evidence that lots and lots of degrees does not in any way preclude you from being really, really stupid.


All the kiddies are doing it these days. It's the new thing!
 
2013-04-19 04:15:28 PM

swangoatman: DAMN---are you --- a wizard?


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=technomancer">http:// www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=technomancer
 
2013-04-19 04:17:11 PM

RedVentrue: hitlersbrain: It's good to see clear evidence that lots and lots of degrees does not in any way preclude you from being really, really stupid.

All the kiddies are doing it these days. It's the new thing!


Is it too soon to put forth my theory that Dinosaurs were actually killed off by terrorist bombs?
 
2013-04-19 06:03:03 PM

NutWrench: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 461x419]


i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-19 06:45:40 PM

captjc: NutWrench: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 461x419]

[i50.tinypic.com image 850x360]


Look, I'm not saying it was Centauri, but... it was Centauri.
 
2013-04-19 07:03:56 PM

goatleggedfellow: Lsherm: We aren't the aliens, we're just the success story in the garbage heap of the universe.

Nah, we just haven't run into our neighbors yet.


our neigbors are SEX OFFENDERS!!
 
2013-04-19 08:40:39 PM

hitlersbrain: RedVentrue: hitlersbrain: It's good to see clear evidence that lots and lots of degrees does not in any way preclude you from being really, really stupid.

All the kiddies are doing it these days. It's the new thing!

Is it too soon to put forth my theory that Dinosaurs were actually killed off by terrorist bombs?


hitlersbrain: RedVentrue: hitlersbrain: It's good to see clear evidence that lots and lots of degrees does not in any way preclude you from being really, really stupid.

All the kiddies are doing it these days. It's the new thing!

Is it too soon to put forth my theory that Dinosaurs were actually killed off by terrorist bombs?


It's never too early for terrorist pterodactyls.
 
2013-04-19 09:29:47 PM
You know what's really cool that aliens made us in  their image? They must of made others in our image all over the place. So there are other humanoids screwing each other over everywhere.
 
2013-04-20 03:01:40 AM

NutWrench: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 461x419]


Never play cards with a Centauri.
 
2013-04-20 03:04:22 AM

MurphyMurphy: And we weren't seeded by an asteroid at random because the odds of that hitting a planet capable of developing anything would be nill.


That's not true at all.
 
2013-04-20 03:57:52 AM

Big Ramifications: FTA: Moore's Law is the observation that computers increase exponentially in complexity, at a rate of about double the transistors per integrated circuit every two years.

That's as wishy washy as hell, and it uses a unit of time based on our planet in our solar system.

A pattern has been noticed between 1960 and now. They've used that 50 year data set to EXTRAPOLATE BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF TIME. They've also assumed life evolves at the same rate as computer power.

I really hare how science is being over run by attention whores. Seems like a noticebale trend that is picking up speed.

~
My "unit of time" comment was stupid. I take that bit back.
 
2013-04-20 10:01:43 AM
A lot of folks here really seem to be missing the point of this article.  The scientists involved very clearly stated that this is nothing more than a thought exercise.  They admitted that they had to make wild assumptions, the formula is ridiculously over-simplified, and even if all that weren't true, that their theory still shouldn't be taken as fact or proof of anything at all.  It was simply a thought exercise.

That's the equivelant of a comic book series putting out a limited alternate universe mini-series, where they say, "let's pretend the heroes are the villians and the villians are the heroes", and now let's see how the story will unfold.  Kinda a la "Red Son".

It's just a thought exercise.  Kinda like how we all imagine sleeping with subby's mom tonight.

/well, not all of us together at the same time.  That would be weird and crowded,
 
2013-04-20 01:07:58 PM

Big Ramifications: Big Ramifications: FTA: Moore's Law is the observation that computers increase exponentially in complexity, at a rate of about double the transistors per integrated circuit every two years.

That's as wishy washy as hell, and it uses a unit of time based on our planet in our solar system.

A pattern has been noticed between 1960 and now. They've used that 50 year data set to EXTRAPOLATE BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF TIME. They've also assumed life evolves at the same rate as computer power.

I really hare how science is being over run by attention whores. Seems like a noticebale trend that is picking up speed.
~
My "unit of time" comment was stupid. I take that bit back.


You can't take it back. It's immortalized on Fark for the world to see. :)
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report