I've put it on another, more appropriate list :-) Maris
Peter Alling wrote: > I'd love to see the methodology. (And yes I'm sure Frank will see a > dirty joke here as well, just to combine another thread). > > At 04:19 AM 6/3/03 -0500, you wrote: >> I have studied this matter thoroughly while keeping silent. >> >> The number of planets that can possibly produce life turns out to be >> 69. >> >> (No joke in there - it's a scientific fact) >> >> Maris >> >> T Rittenhouse wrote: >>> Literally! >>> >>> The equation probably would give us a relatively precise indication >>> of the life out there, IF we had real numbers to plug into it. >>> However, all we have is off the top of our heads BS. It is a case of >>> having a method, but not having any data to use it with. We can give >>> an accurate estimate of the range of possible answers though. >>> Somewhere between 1 (this one), and all the planets that possibly >>> can produce life. >>> >>> Ciao, >>> Graywolf >>> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:10 AM >>> Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A >>> turned into Star Trek Thread) >>> >>> >>>> The drake equation quantifies nothing. But it does look >>>> impressive, which is the >>>> point. > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
