Even if the planets are inside the habitable zone, they would need to be the correct consistencies... Venus and Mars are in the zone here, but neither has life or is natively habitable. Yes, we're attempting to discover if Mars may have HAD life, but as far as we can obviously tell, it has none now...

So it's fun and interesting to search these types of star systems and planets--and I think it's absolutely worthwhile to focus a SETI program on them to try to determine if there are any stray signals we can pick up--but otherwise this really is not much more than dreaming and guessing.

Assuming SETI finds no signals, but we do believe there a couple of planets into the habitable zone, then I think it would make some sense to attempt a probe mission there... but it could be a while before we're at the technology level we'd need...

I think our current speed record in space is about 150,000mph ... which is ~1/5000th the speed of light. So while 12 years seems do-able from a speed of light point of view, there is no (present) method to send a probe there in a reasonable amount of time... I'd say reasonable would be a ~36 years to get there, plus another 12 years for the return signal... so roughly 50 years from launch to first data... meaning it would likely be a two, maybe three, generation program from a NASA engineer point of view.

We'd need something capable of:
a) Traveling at least 1/3rd the speed of light (roughly a quarter billion miles per hour)
b) A power source capable of lasting at least ~40 years or more with enough juice available near end of life to complete its mission
c) Capable of complete autonomy in 100% unknown situation
d) Possibly requiring the ability to actively correct its course en route, and maybe even detect and avoid collisions

This is truly an excellent post.

The US has active invasion plans for just about every square meter of the planet.

Most countries with a real military have active plans for many different things...

It's how you keep from getting caught with your pants down.

That was supposed to be modded as funny right?

The US involves itself in military action wherever / whenever to protect its interests and the estimated costs of those military actions are believed to be less than the potential costs (or losses) which would result out of inaction.

Once involved, the decisions skew toward protecting their military personnel and world politics.

Justifying you were attacked first is not that difficult when you place military assets into foreign (often disputed) locations and are able to perform covert actions against your future enemies... it's a matter of setting up the game board.

Why would China do anything besides that? At most they may give some statement... but they would be crazy to do anything else besides assist the US (which is unlikely unless they themselves feel threatened).

There is absolutely no need for anyone in the rest of the world to intervene in the event of an official NK attack on US, particularly nuclear... it would be a de facto declaration of war and NK would be completely obliterated within days... any areas left habitable would be occupied by US forces within weeks.

The jokes of China owning the US aside, the fact is that the US has a large and powerful military force. It has been, and continues to be, willing and able to use it around the world to protect its interests (whatever they may be). Any take over, attacks, etc must be indirect and SUBTLE. Overt actions and the whole "we hold your treasury notes" stuff is absolutely out the window. China would be idiotic to attempt to physically intervene against retaliation for any direct attack on the US, NK or otherwise.

Unfortunately that just isn't practically feasible. You need between 4 and 9 people working and paying between 10% and 20% of their production in taxes or something similar so as to enough goods and services for the retired.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you assume no one saves for their own retirement during their working career?

I'm mid-career and on target (assuming no major financial or government upsets) to retire and require zero assistance or payback from the government.

If there were a relatively simple electronic device that could interfere with a planes operation, it would have been found and exploited by now.

Short of intentionally jamming radio frequencies or sending out radar-confusing pulses, etc, there isn't all that much that can go wrong in that regard... and the stuff that can go wrong is generally just nuisance-level, not crash-level... I don't think there is any straight forward way to disable an engine or a computer through interference (at least, not on the level you'd get from something allowed as a carry on, or possibly even checked luggage).

As a regular flyer I honestly cannot believe how many people will either intentionally disobey, or are completely oblivious, when they're asked to turn off devices and bring their seats up, etc... It's really NOT hard... but some of these people simply do not want to comply until they are literally given a "talking to" by the flight attendant.

I've always thought that the modern ban on electronics when taxiing or below 10,000' was more about you, as a passenger, paying attention to the situation and any instructions of the crew.

Admittedly there isn't much you can do if something goes wrong, but it's such a short period of time for you to simply pay attention, and if it helps keep reaction times good, and keeps the cabin clear, why not?

Yeah no kidding... we're not talking about hospital generators... it's freaking web servers.

If it's my company, my money, my neck is on the line...

If I'm working for someone else--who would just as soon lay me off if it became cheap enough to do so--then I do what I'm paid to do. Carrying 5G buckets of diesel up 17 dark flights of steps while the lobby has 4' of water in it is NOT what I'm being paid for.

It has nothing to do with a lack of courage or fear. It has to do with understanding that it's not worth potentially DYING or becoming disabled in a situation where the company will almost certainly turn around distance itself by saying I was operating outside the scope of what they told me to do, possibly ending up in any insurance claims being denied, or even in my being personally litigated against...

mod up...

Agreed, I think it's pretty lousy to have these types of animals as pets--there is a reason birds go crazy when left alone in cages, they are too intelligent and not psychologically suited for domesticated life. Just because it's small enough to not seriously injure humans does not mean it's acceptable or suited to become a pet.

Cats & Dogs have been domesticated over hundreds/thousands of generations... even today there are breeds of dogs that are clearly not suited for living mostly indoors--so would paralyzing that breed of dog (even if in a painless and temporary manner) not be considered cruel? These birds belong in their natural habitats, not in people's suburban homes...

Now if this bird had a wing injury this would be a totally different story, he's giving it a life it could not have... but that is not really the case here, this bird was forced to live a life in a cage when it could otherwise be out in nature.

Let's keep this legitimate and put Kevin Sorbo in charge please.

Seriously... wtf are you talking about? You either need to put down the crack pipe, or provide legitimate citations for these (and then pass the crack pipe over here)

This is certainly news for nerds. A man is being arrested for posting something on facebook. To be arrested for posting ANYTHING on facebook seems *insane* to me.

The US, for it's faults, certainly does have some good points. I was watching an old (2 years) youtube video about Paul Hogan (Crocodile Dundee) who was under investigation by the Australian Crimes Commission. He went on TV talking about the investigation, the video I was watching was a follow up by some sort of a talk show host who was saying that it's illegal to talk about the investigation or even admit you are being investigated--that seems absolutely insane to me as well. So not only are we going to accuse of crimes, but it will BE A CRIME if you tell anyone we are investigating you......... that is nuts.

No, it's more like saying he know how to evaluate (and trust) his sexual partners before engaging in sex, and those that he doesn't trust or can't be sure of, he brings to the clinic to get tested first...