----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 12:52 PM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #368
> ------------------------------ > > Content-Type: text/plain > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 368 > > Today's Topics: > RE: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re [ "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Fred wins ! (was Re: CAVEMAN WINS! C [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Barn Owl at 1000 ISO [ "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Just what does it take to be rem [ Ryan Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Hello and lots and lots "for sal [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Hello and lots and lots "for sal [ Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > re: another 31 Limited question [ Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: another 31 Limited question [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re [ Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20OT:=20The=20pro [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: another 31 Limited question [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re [ Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: OT: The problems of E.T. [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Pentax bashing (was Re: another 31 L [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:00:14 -0400 > From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > I'm actually of the view the Drake equation is too > > pessimetic. It's too > > human. Counting only plants like Earth. > > One night on tv I saw a guy describing a hypothetical planet that > supported life. I was very curious as to what he would say, but he > proceeded to describe a planet...just like earth. How unimaginative, eh? > > > First, one of the things that pisses me off about much sci fi that has > > > to do with ET's is that aliens always bear such a striking resemblence > > > to us! > > Yep. The original Star Trek series had a few interesting non-humanoid > aliens, and Next Generation had a couple, but they've gone downhill from > there. I think it's much more likely that if we ever manage to explore > other planets or solar systems, we will encounter intelligent life that > we don't even recognize as intelligent, because it looks like a rock or > something. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:09:04 -0400 > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Fred wins ! (was Re: CAVEMAN WINS! CAVEMAN WINS! CAVEMAN WINS...) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Yep, it's a "K" 200/4. ;-) (my outdoor portrait lens heheh). > > And about the Asahi beer - it's very much like Pentax lens, after > testing it, you'll notice there's no IS..... ;-) > > cheers, > caveman > > Fred wrote: > >>I was gonna say M4.0 200, but you may be right. 4.0 200 of some > >>sort, would be my guess... > > > > > > Perhaps. It just seemed to me that the diaphragm ring, which shows > > knurled ridges all the way around (without a gap for the numerals) > > looks "K-ish" to me. (My K 135/2.5 and my K 200/2.5 look that way.) > > > > Of course, I'm missing the point of the entire photograph - <g>... > > > > Fred > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:57:20 -0400 > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Barn Owl at 1000 ISO > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I like the second image. It has a real "artsy" feel about it. I suspect it > was cropped? Almost looks like its printed on a matte paper. Nice catch. > Kenneth Waller > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: OT: Barn Owl at 1000 ISO > > > > Gotta have something as an antidote to all this Star Trek nonesense ;-) > > > snip, snip.... a barn owl flying around the field > > next to the house. Having vowed not to do wildlife ad hoc, but having had > > the best part of a bottle of plonk, I jumped up and yelled at my lad to > > keep an eye on him. I was out into the garden as fast as I could, > > desperately trying to fit a long zoom combo onto the digi (details on web > > page). My son pointed out his location just as he took off from > > collecting a field mouse. The sun had set already and the camera was left > > on ISO 100, which clearly wouldn't be enough. I spun the dial around to > > 1000, and swung the lens about - just managed a couple of frames before > > he vanished over a hedge. I'd say he was about 150 yards away. So here's > > full frame and a crop/blow-up at 1000 ISO.... > > > > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/digital/owlat1000iso.html > > > > It's late so I'm off to bed. Catch up tomorrow. TTFN. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > > > > ___/\__ > > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > > _____________________________ > > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 09:30:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Ryan Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Just what does it take to be removed from this list? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hey EktarEd, > > Remember the words to the Eagles song Hotel > California? > "You can check in anytime you like, but you can never > leave." > > WELCOME TO THE PENTAX PDML. > > Ryan Charron > > > > >Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 06:18:26 -0700 > >From: "EktarEd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Just what does it take to be removed from > >his list I have > >tried everything??????? > >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >Subject says it all. This is real annoying at best ! > > - ---------------------------- > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). > http://calendar.yahoo.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:46:40 -0400 > From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Hello and lots and lots "for sale" > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Every major technological change of some product (cameras, cars, > computers, etc.) has resulted in some significant number of mfg's of > that product, dropping that product. In the world of 35mm SLR's, a > number of makers dropped out when electronic based > AE/Program/engineering plastic SLR's came out. I think that half the SLR > makers eventually stopped making SLR's after AF came out. I don't > anything different to happen with the advent of DSLR's. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >At present Canon EOS is my primary system, and since I cannot afford to > >own two systems, I am selling off my Pentax gear. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 09:52:39 -0700 > From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into > Star Trek Thread) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Your point is well taken. See below for some thoughts... > > Nick Zentena wrote: > > > > On June 1, 2003 07:56 am, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > I just did look it up. Thanks. > > > > > > http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html > > > > > > Redoing the existing formula's default parameters to some a bit less > > > optimistic, I come up with 200 possible communicating life forms within > > > OUR galaxy... The downloaded formula says 2400. I'm less optimistic. > > > > I'm actually of the view the Drake equation is too pessimetic. It's too > > human. Counting only plants like Earth. > > "Planets like earth" is pretty egocentric, I'll grant you. Of course it > assumes a carbon-based life form, when we know others can exist. It > asumes a very narrow temperature range of say -40 to +130 degrees F. as > it's habitable range. > We all now know that the bacteria living in the vicinity of those > spewing volcanic vents on the deep ocean floor thrive in an unimaginably > hostile environment! Yet they live and actually eat a lot of the > poisonous elements and compounds down there. They've modified their body > chemistry to be able to utilize chemicals that would kill a human in a hurry! > Who knows what other sort of "life" exists on our earth, that we still > are ignorant about? > > What about the alternate, long ago proposed in sciene fiction novels, > such as silicon based forms? Some of the arguments seem pretty plausible... > > We've broken rocks apart and found living 'things,' whatever form they > take, bacteria or yeast, lichen...whatever. Still, living inside solid rock! > > I just read something the other day about tons of bacteria (and virii?) > from outer space raining down on the earth regularly. What about that? > From where? Who says so? > I'm really curious about that! > If true, then it ought to put the capper on any thoughts of earth-based > life being our exclusive property. What a ball of snakes THAT presents! > > > The real question is why would they want to talk to us. > > I would guess that trait - curiosity - would be fairly universal. They > probably would be glad to have their pre-conceived notions about other > worlders confirmed: ugly, hostile and ignorant. <g> > But beyond that confirmation stage, who CARES what such a [shudder!] > creature thinks? > > > Nick > > keith > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:58:53 -0400 > From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Hello and lots and lots "for sale" > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 04:53 PM 5/31/2003 +0200, you wrote: > > > >I am happy, and now that I do not spend so much time on eBay, PDML or > >KMP, I have lots of time to go shooting. I ordered the 10D immediately > >after I learned that Pentax has delayed the *ist D. Within two hours of > >receiving the 10D, I was lucky to shoot the following image: > >http://www.bdimitrov.de/private/wood_warbler.jpg I was using the EF > >400/5.6 USM L lens and built-in flash. On the DSLR the lens appears to > >be 640/5.6, and the cropped out image covers about 70% of the entire > >image. Within an hour of taking the image, I had it touched up in > >PainShopPro and printed out. What an amazing experience! > > Nice shot, Boz! > > It seems to me that a lot digital images with fine edge detail (like birds, > flower macros, etc) seem to get a sharper definition of that detail than > even the best film. I may be all wet on this - but do you see improved > definition and detail on subjects like birds with your digital vs film? > > >And in the end, just a warning to those considering the *ist D. > >Regardless of how much the body costs, plan on spending twice as much. > >You will probably need a MicroDrive or two, extra batteries, a charger, > >probably a couple of new lenses, you will need to upgrade your computer, > >your printer will NEVER be good enough, and you WILL want to buy > >insurance for your new body. So, if you have to collect the last > >dollars for the DSLR, then consider waiting for 6 months or so. Not > >following this advice will quickly lead you to my situation --- > >emergency sale of every piece of non-essential equipment... > > Good advice - how big are the files on the 10D? > > I was reading up on the RAW format yesterday and it seems very impressive - > is that what you mostly shoot in? > > Good luck with the birds! > > - MCC > - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino > Kalamazoo, MI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - - - - - - - - - - > Photos: > http://www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:17:02 -0700 > From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star > Trek Thread) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Nick Zentena wrote: > > > > On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote: > > > Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) My > > > favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species arises, > > > sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that colonoy > > > to send out another ship, etc. Making these estimates, the entire > > > galaxy should be colonized in about 5 million years, whihc is a blink of > > > the eye in cosmic terms. So where are they? > > Merely mathematically speaking, that's only 12,500 forays into the > reaches of the galaxy. > Way too easy to get lost, or from their viewpoint, way to easy to miss > such a miniscule number of visitors! > What is YOUR definition of "colonizing the galaxy?" Maybe I missed something. > > Dump a thousand tons of sand into the ocean. Once the murkiness > disappears, where's your sand? > Even bright flourescent orange sand, what are the chances for your ever > finding such a grain? > Seems to me it would take a LOT more than a 5 million year period. > > > > You then get into "intelligent but no tech", deliberately avoiding us, > > > etc. A good read if you like this stuff. > > I guess I'll have to visit our local library to see if I can take out a copy... > > > My feeling is when the next door neigbour is 4+ light years away you're > > aren't going for a cup of sugar. At 1/10 of light it's 40+ years each > > way. Ignoring speeding up and slowing down. That's next door. > > > > Now lets say they have come. Say 100 years ago a ship showed up. Took out > > there disposable camera. Took pictures of all the tourists things. Left some > > graffiti on a wall. Ticked Earth off the list of things to do before they > > die. Are we ever going to know they've been here? > > No. I am of the opinion it's happened before. and other than some > inexplicable oddities here and there, which we've become used to > "observing" but remaining ignorant of any significance, we go our way as > tho' nothing happened. > > Of course we wouldn't know of it. > > keith > > > Nick > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:24:59 -0600 > From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: re: another 31 Limited question > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Alan, I had to send mine to Pentax because of a loose front end. It > would slide back and forth. When it slid forward, focus was impossible. > It's now repaired, but this may be a weakness. > > Joe > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:31:10 -0400 > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: another 31 Limited question > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > It's not without difficulty that I refrain now from more Pentax bashing, > especially re their lens line. > > cheers, > caveman > > Joseph Tainter wrote: > > Alan, I had to send mine to Pentax because of a loose front end. It > > would slide back and forth. When it slid forward, focus was impossible. > > It's now repaired, but this may be a weakness. > > > > Joe > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 20:01:33 +0200 > From: Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread) > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > På søndag, 1. juni 2003, kl. 19:17, skrev Keith Whaley: > > > Nick Zentena wrote: > >> > >> On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote: > >>> Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) My > >>> favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species > >>> arises, > >>> sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that > >>> colonoy > >>> to send out another ship, etc. Making these estimates, the entire > >>> galaxy should be colonized in about 5 million years, whihc is a > >>> blink of > >>> the eye in cosmic terms. So where are they? > > > > Merely mathematically speaking, that's only 12,500 forays into the > > reaches of the galaxy. > > Way too easy to get lost, or from their viewpoint, way to easy to miss > > such a miniscule number of visitors! > > What is YOUR definition of "colonizing the galaxy?" Maybe I missed > > something. > > > > Dump a thousand tons of sand into the ocean. Once the murkiness > > disappears, where's your sand? > > Even bright flourescent orange sand, what are the chances for your ever > > finding such a grain? > > Seems to me it would take a LOT more than a 5 million year period. > > There´s another scenario that would take this short time, or shorter. > Why send people? Send probes! > > Send probes that can copy themselves when they land on a planet with > the right materials. It´s technologically possible for us now or a > short time from now, so why not a more advanced civilization. Then > make all of them report to the same planet. Even if each probe only > make two successful copies in each ten years the galaxy will be flooded > by then within a few hundred thousand years.... > > >>> You then get into "intelligent but no tech", deliberately avoiding > >>> us, > >>> etc. A good read if you like this stuff. > > > > I guess I'll have to visit our local library to see if I can take out > > a copy... > > Try reading a few short stories and novels by David Brin, sci fi > author, physicist and former NASA employee (I think he´s been involved > with the SETI project - the search for extra terrestrial intelligence). > The short story "The Crystal Spheres" discusses this problem, and has > a very odd solution to it. > > DagT > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:28:42 -0700 > From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into > Star Trek Thread) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Sorry, but I just can't get excited by something that will happen in a > couple of hundred years, let along a "few hundred thousand years." > In fact, in a few 10's of years it may not matter much anymore ANYhow, > and inside 50 years, most of US will be dead, so... > > Thanks for the reminder on the Crystal Spheres. It's been a long time > since I've read that one... > > keith whaley > > Dag T wrote: > > > > På søndag, 1. juni 2003, kl. 19:17, skrev Keith Whaley: > > > > > Nick Zentena wrote: > > >> > > >> On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote: > > >>> Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) My > > >>> favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species > > >>> arises, > > >>> sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that > > >>> colonoy > > >>> to send out another ship, etc. Making these estimates, the entire > > >>> galaxy should be colonized in about 5 million years, whihc is a > > >>> blink of > > >>> the eye in cosmic terms. So where are they? > > > > > > Merely mathematically speaking, that's only 12,500 forays into the > > > reaches of the galaxy. > > > Way too easy to get lost, or from their viewpoint, way to easy to miss > > > such a miniscule number of visitors! > > > What is YOUR definition of "colonizing the galaxy?" Maybe I missed > > > something. > > > > > > Dump a thousand tons of sand into the ocean. Once the murkiness > > > disappears, where's your sand? > > > Even bright flourescent orange sand, what are the chances for your ever > > > finding such a grain? > > > Seems to me it would take a LOT more than a 5 million year period. > > > > There´s another scenario that would take this short time, or shorter. > > Why send people? Send probes! > > > > Send probes that can copy themselves when they land on a planet with > > the right materials. It´s technologically possible for us now or a > > short time from now, so why not a more advanced civilization. Then > > make all of them report to the same planet. Even if each probe only > > make two successful copies in each ten years the galaxy will be flooded > > by then within a few hundred thousand years.... > > > >>> You then get into "intelligent but no tech", deliberately avoiding > > >>> us, etc. A good read if you like this stuff. > > > > I guess I'll have to visit our local library to see if I can take out > > > a copy... > > > > Try reading a few short stories and novels by David Brin, sci fi > > author, physicist and former NASA employee (I think he´s been involved > > with the SETI project - the search for extra terrestrial intelligence). > > The short story "The Crystal Spheres" discusses this problem, and has > > a very odd solution to it. > > > > DagT > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:32:19 +0100 > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20OT:=20The=20problems=20of=20E.T.=20=0D?= > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >> I'm not sure I'm so eager to have the universe populated with > >> species such as ours (the most dangerous - and easily the most > >> destructive - species on this planet we call "ours")... > > > > > > Isn't that why it's "ours"? There is a quote in one of Niven's books > > > >Something like "How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a leaf?" > > > Speaker-to-animals (the Kzin) said that to Nessus in Ringworld IIRC. > Larry Niven is may favourite SF writer of all time. Got all the books and > read them all in my teens. Re-read a few into 30s. Will re-read them > again I dare say. Superb. > > Known Universe geel ;-) > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _____________________________ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:01:51 -0700 > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: another 31 Limited question > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Caveman, > > So just what is your reasoning in Pentax bashing? Does it make you > feel good or something? > > Any product or company can be bashed if one really wants to. Just > pick the right angle. I'm curious why you feel the need... > > > Bruce > > > > Sunday, June 1, 2003, 10:31:10 AM, you wrote: > > C> It's not without difficulty that I refrain now from more Pentax bashing, > C> especially re their lens line. > > C> cheers, > C> caveman > > C> Joseph Tainter wrote: > >> Alan, I had to send mine to Pentax because of a loose front end. It > >> would slide back and forth. When it slid forward, focus was impossible. > >> It's now repaired, but this may be a weakness. > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:03:58 +0200 > From: Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread) > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > På søndag, 1. juni 2003, kl. 20:28, skrev Keith Whaley: > > > Sorry, but I just can't get excited by something that will happen in a > > couple of hundred years, let along a "few hundred thousand years." > > In fact, in a few 10's of years it may not matter much anymore ANYhow, > > and inside 50 years, most of US will be dead, so... > > Well, as you know the point is why then hasn´t it happened already. > But then again, I´m among those who hasn´t seen any evidence. After > traveling for ages I don´t think they would care to hide, and I´ve > never been a fan of those pseudo archeologists... > > DagT > > > > > > Thanks for the reminder on the Crystal Spheres. It's been a long time > > since I've read that one... > > > > keith whaley > > > > Dag T wrote: > >> > >> På søndag, 1. juni 2003, kl. 19:17, skrev Keith Whaley: > >> > >>> Nick Zentena wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote: > >>>>> Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) > >>>>> My > >>>>> favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species > >>>>> arises, > >>>>> sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that > >>>>> colonoy > >>>>> to send out another ship, etc. Making these estimates, the entire > >>>>> galaxy should be colonized in about 5 million years, whihc is a > >>>>> blink of > >>>>> the eye in cosmic terms. So where are they? > >>> > >>> Merely mathematically speaking, that's only 12,500 forays into the > >>> reaches of the galaxy. > >>> Way too easy to get lost, or from their viewpoint, way to easy to > >>> miss > >>> such a miniscule number of visitors! > >>> What is YOUR definition of "colonizing the galaxy?" Maybe I missed > >>> something. > >>> > >>> Dump a thousand tons of sand into the ocean. Once the murkiness > >>> disappears, where's your sand? > >>> Even bright flourescent orange sand, what are the chances for your > >>> ever > >>> finding such a grain? > >>> Seems to me it would take a LOT more than a 5 million year period. > >> > >> There´s another scenario that would take this short time, or shorter. > >> Why send people? Send probes! > >> > >> Send probes that can copy themselves when they land on a planet with > >> the right materials. It´s technologically possible for us now or a > >> short time from now, so why not a more advanced civilization. Then > >> make all of them report to the same planet. Even if each probe only > >> make two successful copies in each ten years the galaxy will be > >> flooded > >> by then within a few hundred thousand years.... > > > >>>>> You then get into "intelligent but no tech", deliberately avoiding > >>>>> us, etc. A good read if you like this stuff. > > > >>> I guess I'll have to visit our local library to see if I can take out > >>> a copy... > >> > >> Try reading a few short stories and novels by David Brin, sci fi > >> author, physicist and former NASA employee (I think he´s been involved > >> with the SETI project - the search for extra terrestrial > >> intelligence). > >> The short story "The Crystal Spheres" discusses this problem, and > >> has > >> a very odd solution to it. > >> > >> DagT > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:03:47 -0700 > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OT: The problems of E.T. > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Cotty, > > Just finished a re-read of Ringworld. I don't recall that quote. I'm > guessing it is in the second or third book. He is one of my favorite > authors too, especially when he teams up with Jerry Pournelle. > > > Bruce > > > > Sunday, June 1, 2003, 11:32:19 AM, you wrote: > > >>> I'm not sure I'm so eager to have the universe populated with > >>> species such as ours (the most dangerous - and easily the most > >>> destructive - species on this planet we call "ours")... > >> > >> > >> Isn't that why it's "ours"? There is a quote in one of Niven's books > >> > >>Something like "How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a leaf?" > > > C> Speaker-to-animals (the Kzin) said that to Nessus in Ringworld IIRC. > C> Larry Niven is may favourite SF writer of all time. Got all the books and > C> read them all in my teens. Re-read a few into 30s. Will re-read them > C> again I dare say. Superb. > > C> Known Universe geel ;-) > > > C> Cheers, > C> Cotty > > > C> ___/\__ > C> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > C> ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > C> _____________________________ > C> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:25:49 -0400 > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Pentax bashing (was Re: another 31 Limited question) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Caveman, > > > > So just what is your reasoning in Pentax bashing? Does it make you > > feel good or something? > > Here it is on short. Any time I am pondering on getting an AF camera, > and I research what's there on the market, I always notice that the > Pentax offer is half-as**d, and that's without taking digital into > consideration. Which really annoys me, as I would preffer to stay in the > same lens mount system. As things look right now, it seems that I'll do > something like Boz has done, except that I'll keep an LX and a macro > lens for my close-up photography. (and digital is not on my short-list > right now; maybe in 2-3 years). > > cheers, > caveman > > -------------------------------- > End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 Issue #368 > *********************************************
