Well technically, to some it might be considered a compliment (like actual neo-Nazis).

FWIW, some additional info:

Life possible on extrasolar moons "In their search for habitable worlds, astronomers have started to consider exomoons, or those likely orbiting planets outside the solar system. In a new study, a pair of researchers has found that exomoons are just as likely to support life as exoplanets."

Just keep in mind this field is an interesting area of active research. So take things with a grain of salt. But we have huge amounts of interesting new data coming from a.o. the Kepler observatory, and other projects. E.g.:

At Least One in Six Stars Has an Earth-Sized Planet, Analysis Finds "A new analysis of Kepler data shows that about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury. Since the Milky Way has about 100 billion stars, there are at least 17 billion Earth-sized worlds out there"

Planets Abound: Astronomers Estimate That at Least 100 Billion Planets Populate the Galaxy "There's at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy -- just our galaxy,"

Fifteen New Planets Hint at 'Traffic Jam' of Moons in Habitable Zone "Added to the 19 similar planets already discovered in habitable zones, where the temperature is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water, the new finds suggest that there may be a 'traffic jam' of all kinds of strange worlds in regions that could potentially support life."

It's not a stupid question, my impression is that (basically) we don't know for sure. The 'consensus' seems to be that any kind of 'earth-like' or intelligent life is improbable or impossible, but that other forms of (probably simple, if they do exist) life might exist. The conditions for humans would likely be inhospitable though. Jupiter's core/surface, for example, contains a massive, deep 'ocean' of liquid metallic hydrogen.

I think more interesting though, is if Jupiter is anything to go by, big planets may have lots of moons, and those moons could certainly have conditions favorable for either interesting forms of life, or colonization.

Some thoughts for consideration:

- Within 50 years (if not much sooner), we'll almost certainly have cured aging. Once humans regularly live in the many hundreds (or even thousands) of years, a 20, 30, 50, even 100 year trip won't seem as long (plus we'll have great on-board entertainment to keep us busy thanks to advanced robotic girlfriends).

- Once you approach even half the speed of light, local time slows down for you, so e.g. a 50 year trip would be 'only' 30 or 40 years (I haven't done the exact math)

- Accelerating humans to half C won't be easy, but if you consider that aging may be cured in our lifetimes, the goal of sending autonomous robotic explorers to stars (a la Mars Curiosity) just 13ly away may be quite feasible in some of our lifetimes. That alone is exciting. If you live 500 years, and you send a robotic probe at 1/10th C to a star 13 ly away (130 year trip plus 13 years for data to come back), you'll EASILY live to see the results. And beyond that, who knows - the technology of 150 years from now, we may well be sending the first humans to the nearest stars by then.

This is not even 'inane fantasy', it's just what is likely to become possible, and even to become mundane reality.

My suspicion is that we'll never find a way to travel faster than the speed of light. But our discussions seem to be limited by a common inability to imagine that other variables, that we take for granted, may change dramatically - e.g. the typical human lifespan.

Also, perspective: We've been 'human' for approximately 2 million years. We have millions of years ahead of us as a species, and even on cosmic scales, you can do an enormous amount in even just 2 million years.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I think our future in space is practically certain, and that we'll probably ultimately reach hundreds of other stars, and establish colonies on other planets. It's a matter of when and how, not if. The only thing that can stop us if everyone collectively gives up. That isn't going to happen, there will always be humans who want to explore.

You look around, make sure noone sees you and when this turns out to be positive, you keep your fucking mouth shut

And that makes you better, how exactly? Sounds you're as much of a dipshit as the guy in the article.

Humans will be going to space. We'll be travelling to space, we'll be colonizing space, we'll be visiting planets and terraforming them. So way I see it, you can either be part of this future, and be part of something exciting, or you can sit back on earth making "clever" cynical remarks, and get left behind to wallow in the mud of primitivism. I know which one I'll choose.

You can usually still find the original pictures, but not always easily.

Here is a link to one of those original pictures:

http://www.log24.com/log/pix09A/091127-BlackSquare256-revA.jpg

(What, your eyes can't see electromagnetic radiation outside the visible light range?)

(You actually have it completely the wrong way round; it isn't that 'false' color is 'added' - it's that in reality, there are trillions more 'colors' than our very limited human eyes can see.)

TFA contains a direct link to the original article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology FFS, can we advance to the next stage of logical fallacies now ..

This. There is a reason 2/3s~ of the human race don't get cancer. Hint, it isn't because they were lucky.

That should be simple to test, by checking if four cups of coffee only lowers oral cancer or other types of cancer too. If it only lowers oral cancer but mysteriously no others, then this lowering effect has nothing to do with your "physical constitution".

Cancer rates are not entirely genetic, that much is already extremely well-established ... there are other major risk factors like smoking and obesity. Given the obesity link, and the fact that coffee also appears to lower your risk of diabetes, I suspect the effect may be coming from elsewhere in the coffee.

It's "fair" except for the part that taxation is theft and that being present on US soil is a natural right, while deportation is an act of initiation of force and a violation of natural rights. But other than that, sure, very fair.

Setting up a "foreign shell corporation" doesn't specifically help you, because the moment you pay yourself anything out of it (e.g. income / dividends) that income is also taxable. It's also not trivial; also, shell corporations and income earned overseas is still liable for local taxation. You make like sitting in a foreign country means you sit and avoid taxes, it's not true, you have to pay the local taxes as well the US taxes.

They'll just extract "royalties" on all their "inventions" for a looong time.

??? You do realize that under US taxation law, US citizens are required to pay taxes on income earned globally wherever they are in the world? You can go live in the most remote spot in Antarctica and you are still required to pay your taxes on every cent you earn.

20 years old is not "underage", but don't let things like facts stop you from lying.

Yes, but it does make him delusional for thinking that he either lived by some different special rules with different special privileges because HE was from a "first world" country

Due process is not a "special privilege", it's a basic, fundamental human right that should be afforded to all human beings on earth. Due process may not be universally applied, but the principles of due process are universal.