I'm not sure it's that ironic, since carlsbergite is named after the Carlsberg Foundation, which was set up by Carlsberg's founder.

Who are you, Mr Headline, to tell me I don't need an iPad? I think most Slashdot readers are more than capable of making up their own minds on this one.

Here is one Slashdotter who does need his iPad.

Less op-ed clickbait, more actual news, please.

Then don't present your opinions in such absolute terms!

What's uncertain about the fact that we don't see billion-year-old civilizations around us?

The Fermi Paradox - that we don't see billion-year-old civilizations around us and we're not sure why - is a fact.

It's just a proposal at this stage, which is coincidentally generating a bit of PR by getting people reading and talking about NASA. As to "necessary," well, none of it's necessary, but the thought of getting 1000x Hubble resolution has got to be at least worth costing up.

They're complimentary. You might be able to see "more" in most objective terms from the ground in radio than visible light, but that doesn't mean visible light can't provide information you can't get from radio.

Is that the hunt for people already under suspicion, or a hunt for new names to add to the list?

So this story's real? I thought someone was Havana laugh.

Thank you, thank you.

Smithers: [over intercom] Principal Skinner, this is your secretary. There is one last student here to see you.
Skinner: That's odd. I don't have a secretary...or an intercom. But send him in.
            [Burns enters dressed like Jimbo]
Burns: Ahoy, there, Dean. I understand you're taking suggestions from students, eh?
            [sits on desk; groans as his knee bends painfully]
            Well, me and my fourth form chums think it would be quite corking if you'd sign over your oil well to the local energy concern.
Skinner: [clears throat] Mr. Burns?
Burns: Buh!
Skinner: It was naive of you to think I would mistake this town's most prominent 104-year-old man for one of my elementary school students.

FTFY.

Not necessarily. It makes it easier for speeders to avoid being caught. It might reduce speeding at the specific location that a speed trap has been reported, but it's not going to make any difference to other locations (and might just, in fact, lead to more speeding there since drivers will know that at least some of the cops are engaged elsewhere).

Not that I think the practice should be banned - that's going way too far. Discouraged, perhaps, but if you can't report a publicly visible fact to another human being then I don't know what the world's coming to. "There's a government official performing an official duty at location X" is certainly not stalking in the same category of reporting on Facebook that "I followed my ex to the supermarket and she bought panties." *

* totally made up example.

I disagree that it was clear, and your belligerent tone certainly doesn't help matters (and is the main reason for me replying in the first place).

I disagree. Both are synonyms for "false," as in "this is false."

And if I said that was "bullshit" I don't see how anyone could interpret that other than as an absolute denial of your impression. You seem to me to have a problem with other people differing with you - I don't know whether that's actually true or not, but you certainly come across that way.

When you declared the proposed - admittedly unlikely - scenario to be first "nonsense" and then "bullshit." And also when you stated as apparent fact that "[t]his is some kid that lost control of their toy" which I would otherwise dismiss as mere emphasis if it wasn't for your generally churlish attitude.

But now you're saying you could - however unlikely that may be - be wrong?

If people with your antagonistic style of rebuttal were to try crying "bullshit" less often and replacing it something along the lines of "that's extremely unlikely and here's why," people might actually pay a bit more attention to their arguments.

I guess the guys behind SpaceX's last landing attempt weren't halfway competent, then? Obviously they should have made sure a crash couldn't happen before attempting a landing. What a bunch of idiots.

You can't make sure that absolutely nothing will go wrong. That's the only certainty. Any halfway competent engineer would know that.

There isn't some magical line of competency below which all plans are automatically doomed to failure. You seem to think only in binary terms, or at least you phrase your comments in that way.

Not to mention that the "good guys" in this case have shown themselves to be less than competent on more than one recent occasion.

Actually what I'm mainly trying to do is provide a little counterpoint to your somewhat arrogant insistence that you are definitely 100% correct.

How can you be so sure? Perhaps they pushed the range too far and/or there was some unexpected interference. The point of a test, after all, is to check for the kind of things you haven't predicted.

That aside, why couldn't it be a less than halfway professional proof of concept attempt?

Lastly, maybe ascertaining/provoking the security response to a drone on the lawn was the point.