Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More on the Waterworld Goldilocks Planet

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the wouldn't-wanna-live-there dept.

Space 107

goldilocksmission writes with this snippet from Goldilocks Mission: "News spread recently about a super-earth-sized planet that has been recently discovered to contain one of the most essential compounds for life to exist in the universe: water. ... GJ1214b is a massive planet that can house about six earths and is about forty light-years away from us. ... The significant discovery leap of detecting Gliese 581d to the more goldilocks planet oriented GJ1214b is a testament to the advances in the technology of detecting earth-like exoplanets."

cancel ×

107 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Overlords (-1, Redundant)

Grey Loki (1427603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545516)

I, for one, welcome our new aquatic overlords.

Re:Overlords (-1, Offtopic)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546590)

I, for one, welcome our new aquatic overlords.

Wow, it looks like this meme has finally outlived it's humorousness. Being modded as redundant on a first post!

I need to start making a list of which memes are still considered funny here so I dont screw up my karma... ;-)

Re:Overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30549164)

Try none. Hint, the funniest comments here do not usually start with "I, for one" or "In Soviet Russia", etc etc etc.

Re:Overlords (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30549548)

Obviously you're new here...

Actually... (3, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546740)

With six times the mass of earth and subsequently higher gravity, any bi-pedal life from that evolves there will most certianly be able to kick your average human's ass.

UFC will never be the same.

Re:Actually... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547236)

Or find themselves unable to perpetuate itself on a planet with as weak a gravity as ours.

It's also worth noting that "potential for life" thought excercise that went on a couple years ago where a nice sampling of biologists were speculating that a super-earth would have a large number of flying creatures as their atmospheres would be much thicker and thereby be more easily able to move about their environment.

Re:Actually... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547496)

Indeed UFC will now be two aliens rolling around on the floor doing something that could be fighting or could be mating.

Re:Actually... (1)

secolactico (519805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30548692)

In hindsight, if they can kick our ass, maybe we shouldn't have named their homeworld Goldilocks. Quick, erase the records before they find out!

Re:Actually... (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30549114)

With six times the mass of earth and subsequently higher gravity, any bi-pedal life from that evolves there will most certianly be able to kick your average human's ass.

Umm, no. That particular planet has a surface gravity of 0.9g. Six times Earth's mass, but only 1/3 Earth's density....

Re:Actually... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30549254)

Work with me here, mmkay?

Re:Actually... (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30550560)

actually, lifeforms will probably be much smaller due to the gravity...

ever wondered why mammals the size of a whale do not exist on land (on earth)? they would instantly collapse; actually when a whale gets stranded on a beach, it collapses...

Re:Actually... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30550874)

You guys must be a load of fun at the local comedy club.

What's next, Santa isn't real?

Re:Actually... (2)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30552258)

You're blaming them because your joke wasn't funny?

A couple things you should know before you go any further:

1. Slashdot is not a comedy club.
2. It's narcissistic in the extreme to blame others for your personal failures.

Jet Skiers Rejoice! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545526)

Greetings to our new super-sized Waterworld Goldilocks overlords.

Goldilocks? (3, Interesting)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545556)

I don't get the Goldilocks reference. Is it because this planet is "just right"? If so, shouldn't it be called the Baby Bear planet?

Re:Goldilocks? (3, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545588)

I don't get the Goldilocks reference. Is it because this planet is "just right"? If so, shouldn't it be called the Baby Bear planet?

If you find a baby bear planet you're probably about to be mauled by a mama bear planet.

Re:Goldilocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545598)

Is it inhabited by Bears?

Givrn its size, it must have a greater gravity than earth, so the inhabitants will be super strong - maybe we should keep away from there, else they will really become our overlords.

Re:Goldilocks? (2, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545788)

Not necessarily. It depends on the planet's density. Of course, given that it's 6 times larger than Earth, it's most likely its gravity is significantly higher, but not necessarily, and not necessarily proportional to its larger size.

Re:Goldilocks? (4, Informative)

HappyHead (11389) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546030)

Surface gravity isn't just determined by density either - there's also the distance from the center of mass to be considered. I got the impression that the planet's mass was measured at 6 times earth, but it's actual diameter was not determined. Technically, it could be anything from a ball of Uranium half the diameter of earth to a loose saturn-like cloud collection the size of Neptune. (Saturn's average density is less than that of water.) The surface gravity of the Uranium-ball planet would be much higher than that of the cloud, mainly because of the distance from the center of mass, since gravity falls off fast with greater distance. With a mass of 6x earth, there technically _should_ be a diameter at which the planet actually has a surface gravity similar to earth.

Re:Goldilocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546076)

The same reason you "weigh" less in the mountains than you do at sea level (though some of that is also less atmosphere pushing down on you.)

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30549556)

Which annoys the hell out of hungry Uruguayan footballers...

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30547954)

> With a mass of 6x earth, there technically _should_ be a diameter at which the planet actually has a surface gravity similar to earth.

Now we're talking Goldilocks.

Re:Goldilocks? (3, Informative)

anon mouse-cow-aard (443646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30548978)

python says: 6**0.5 = 2.449... So if a planet with 6 times the mass has 2.45 times the diameter at the surface, It's juuussst right!

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30549950)

You will instantly sink in the water, but if you manage to come up to the surface, your inhalating of the helium atmosphere will make you sound funny and dead.

Re:Goldilocks? (2, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546100)

Not necessarily. It depends on the planet's density. Of course, given that it's 6 times larger than Earth, it's most likely its gravity is significantly higher, but not necessarily, and not necessarily proportional to its larger size.

Its density is less than 2g/cm^3.

Its surface gravity is about 0.9g.

It is probably a small rock surrounded by hundreds or thousands of miles of ice.

In other words, the temperature may be "just right", but the planet is iffy, at best.

Re:Goldilocks? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545600)

Maybe it's because like Goldilocks, we'll go in and still all of their resources.

Re:Goldilocks? (2, Insightful)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545628)

still them? As in use all their resources to make all kinds of spirits? Good idea!

Re:Goldilocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545624)

That's the planet (moon) from Return of the Jedi.

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30547780)

(Oblig)

That's no moon, that's a space station.

Re:Goldilocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545626)

Heaven forfend you should actually look for the term in, say, Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

ULTRAJOE (808667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545632)

let me Google that for you: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=goldilocks+planet [lmgtfy.com]

Re:Goldilocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547082)

I am tired of "look it up!!!" The guy was trying to be funny. But what if he had an actual question? Googles good for a lot of things but this is a forum and the question is to the people of the forum. But I used google to look up people like you http://tinyurl.com/yagmhjl

Re:Goldilocks? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545666)

As a serious answer, the Goldilocks zone is the orbital distance that lends itself to an earth-like amount of incident solar energy and (potentially) a higher likelihood of life friendly conditions existing.

The porridge isn't too hot or too cold... it's just right.

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545708)

So it is just one of those things like when people refer to the giant reanimated corpse as Frankenstein when it isn't.

Re:Goldilocks? (2, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546200)

We're Goldilocks; we're looking at the porridges and beds... er, planets, and finding ones that are too cold, too hot, too hard, too soft...

and then we find one that's juuuust right.

A planet that's (relatively) close that wouldn't require terraforming? There are no languages that have the words to describe how incredibly valuable such a find would be if we could get there. Humans forever -- even destroying Earth wouldn't stop us.

I've always called Frankenstein's monster a Flesh Golem, but that's just me.

Adam Frankenstein (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546652)

The flesh golem put together by Victor Frankenstein named himself Adam. And because he'd probably be legally the "son" of Victor Frankenstein (in the same way Pinocchio is considered Geppetto's "son"), he'd more than likely have inherited the surname had Victor not been so repulsed.

Re:Adam Frankenstein (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30550184)

In the book, the monster only calls himself Adam in passing (when discussing Paradise Lost) before deciding that he's probably more like Milton's Satan (before dismissing that idea too, on the grounds that Satan was never as lonely as he is). He doesn't seriously take the name Adam; he remains nameless throughout.

Re:Goldilocks? (2, Interesting)

ncohafmuta (577957) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546854)

except that they estimate the surface temp. of the planet is 200 deg. C. how is that in the Goldilocks zone?

-Tony

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30550172)

> they estimate the surface temp. of the planet is 200 deg. C. how is that in the Goldilocks zone?

They're desperate.

You see, they want to find another planet besides Earth that's (at least potentially) capable of supporting life. If they found such a thing, even if there's no life actually on it, it would demonstrate the principle that inhabitable worlds exist besides Earth. This would help them to feel better about their belief that extra-terrestrial intelligent life must exist.

So they're desperate to find Earth-like planets, and desperation leads to lowered standards. A while ago there was one the size of Jupiter and closer to its primary than Mercury, which they were calling "Earth-like" just because it was rocky rather than a gas giant. This one is even better.

Re:Goldilocks? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30549992)

I really like this new term. It expands my vocabulary greatly. Instead of saying I want the right-sized monitor, I can say I want a Goldilocks monitor. Or instead of the right temperature in my house, I can say I want the Goldilocks temperature. Then people will have to ask me what the hell I mean, and I can enjoy answering. Of course I can't just say that it means "suitable"; I must tell a story involving bears and porridge.

Re:Goldilocks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546386)

...shouldn't it be called the Baby Bear planet?

Only for the most nitpickiest of bastards which you appear to be...

Re: one of the most essential compounds for life (4, Funny)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545576)

I thought it was going to say beer.

Re: one of the most essential compounds for life (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545736)

mmmmm.... Beer.....

Re: one of the most essential compounds for life (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546512)

There should totally be an x-prize for discovering a beer planet.

Re: one of the most essential compounds for life (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30550200)

These guys are scientists, so they'd consider beer to be a mixture (or possibly a solution) rather than a compound.

something I could not figure out about waterworld (4, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545648)

How did they get fuel for the fricking jet skis?

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1)

geek2k5 (882748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545702)

Hydrocarbon producing algae, perhaps? That or creatures with high fat content. (Thar she blows!)

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546622)

I'm guessing you lie in wait along the migratory path between Curves and Baskin-Robbins.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1)

geek2k5 (882748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30547020)

Ah, the liposuction place!

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545742)

"How did they get fuel for the fricking jet skis?"

their home base was an oil tanker.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1)

BlackHwk98 (468920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545812)

Problem is with the oil tanker, that's unprocessed oil, unless they actually had built a refinery right on the tanker, the jet ski's wouldn't have been able to operate on pure crude.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (2, Funny)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545826)

Peeing into a Mr. Coffee shouldn't have yielded drinkable water either.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545886)

Peeing into a Mr. Coffee shouldn't have yielded drinkable water either.

Evidently you've never woken up the morning after a frat party.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546066)

Who says they weren't modified and that the refinement process wasn't what we consider refinement today?

This isn't to say that the movie doesn't have a million plot holes as science goes but I'm sure that if people made usable fuel from crude oil with the technology of 100 years ago that it could be done easily today by those with the proper understanding of chemistry.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546604)

They siphoned the gas out of Dennis Hopper's chopper.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30547066)

The fuel was reserved to rescue a refridgerator in Florida. However, the senator was sacked before he could recover it.

Re:something I could not figure out about waterwor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547384)

They don't need no stinking fuel or jet skis. They are a green planet.

Al Gore has already been there, after all he invented the term Goldilocks. They've given up their carbon base and gone green. Solar powered and Wind powered.

I mean on a planet of that size you'd need a huge area displacement in order to remain afloat, mayaswell stick a few solar panels on.

nothing new here (5, Interesting)

dumuzi (1497471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545682)

If you RTFA there is nothing new here. In fact this is more of an advertisement for some wackjob organization called Goldilocks Mission. "The Goldilocks Mission is sending an open invitation to men and women around the globe between 18 and 34 years of age, healthy in every way and in top physical and psychological condition, and who have read the book, GOLDILOCKS MISSION: Man’s Next Migration." They are looking for "Skydets" who will live in a "Space Center" "in a corner of Southwestern New Mexico" to research humanities next migration to the stars. It has the feel of a new cult.

Re:nothing new here (3, Interesting)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545784)

It has the feel of a new cult.

That's exactly what the Vatican told Galileo!

Re:nothing new here (3, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546884)

No, it isn't. First, his employing university told Galileo that teaching this sort of bleeding-edge science, some of which was outright wrong (including, for instance, his theory of the tides, and his characterizations of pendulums), and furthermore wildly contrasted with the current philisophical-scientific consensus. If you were the dean and your faculty started teaching the Electric Universe, you might be concerned too, even if those kooks ended up being right in another 200 years. Then when he wrote a book on the matter and Urban VIII asked him to try and go for a neutral point of view on things (a la Wikipedia's design standards, perhaps) he called the Pope's geocentrism guy "Simplicio" and made him look like an idiot. Bad political move. Then Urban acted like a typical 17th-century Italian nobleman - if anything, probably he was somewhat mild for that archetype.

A tragedy of politics and underdeveloped notions of scientific rigor in the extant culture, but cults hade nothing to do with it.

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30548238)

WOOOOSH!!!!

Re:nothing new here (5, Funny)

Snarkalicious (1589343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545792)

This KoolAid is juuusssst right.

Re:nothing new here (1)

Snarkalicious (1589343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545904)

(thud)

Re:nothing new here (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545988)

Another Apple fanboy.

Re:nothing new here (1)

Snarkalicious (1589343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546254)

Hey, it only cost three times as much and I got to have corn syrup instead of sugar, so suck it. ...

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546044)

Oh yeah!

Re:nothing new here (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546288)

Slashdot definitely got trolled. The article itself is pretty funny. Besides the bits you mention about the "Goldilocks Mission," they also think the planet is habitable but they might have to build a space elevator because it's thick atmosphere will block out light.

I wonder how many 18-34 year old women in top physical condition they get, who are willing to live in a "Space Center" in the desert?

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546400)

wow, people are so naive. we have just begun to research what humans would need to survive extended stays in space or on other planets. there are so many variables. i have read science fiction for decades, and most of the books just gloss over the problems for the sake of storytelling. this wacko group is read to say we could live on the planet. tell me, have you worked out the kinks in your bussard ramjet designs? have you considered the ethics of forcing children of space travellers to be space travellers as well? what about protein incompatibility (or worse, protein COMPATIBILITY and new diseases) if we find life? psychological effects of isolation from the human species in a group too small to avoid inbreeding? psychological effects of living in an environment hostile to our form of life? the danger of having too few technological/raw material resources (say your backup nuclear power plant fails: on earth, 6 billion people and 10000 years of worldwide resource development are behind every thing we construct. not so on a new planet. one false step and you are SO dead). all of these attempts at isolating a group of people to determine our survivability in space are pie in the sky. sure, some value will come from them, but it is hubris to think we are gonna move out into the universe like we moved over our planet. its cold and hard out there...

Re:nothing new here (2, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546560)

It has the feel of a new cult.

Not only that, but they have the inane thought that a planet 1/40th of the distance from Mercury to Sol might actually be habitable because "a red dwarf ... is significantly more than three hundred times cooler than our own", neglecting the inverse square law, and that it would be red light, not the rainbow spectrum we require.

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30548116)

Green plants handle red light just fine...

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546664)

As long as they have regular orgies, I'm in.

Re:nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547266)

I definitely felt the wierdness while browsing that site. You forgot to mention the compulsory daily meditation.

Higher Ice Phases (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545780)

A "waterworld" would actually have a fairly shallow ocean, on the order of 75 to 100 km deep for an Earth size planet, as other ice phases would form at the bottom of the ocean [arxiv.org] at depth.

Re:Higher Ice Phases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30545906)

100 kilometers is shallow? That's about 10 times deeper than anywhere on earth.

Re:Higher Ice Phases (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546070)

Depends on your point of view. The 6 Earth-mass planet modeled by the Léger et al. paper I referenced has a 5000 km thick water mantle, but only the top 100 km of that would be liquid, which seems pretty shallow to me, considering. All of the higher phases of ice are denser than liquid water, and they form under pressure, so this conclusion seems pretty robust to me.

Re:Higher Ice Phases (3, Insightful)

Daxx22 (1610473) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546246)

Still, speaking in purely human concepts of scale, that's bloody deep.

Re:Higher Ice Phases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546376)

I didn't read the paper because et al. is a junk scientist.

Re:Higher Ice Phases (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30548010)

The 6 Earth-mass planet modeled by the Léger et al. paper I referenced has a 5000 km thick water mantle, but only the top 100 km of that would be liquid

If there was life on that planet, I'd imagine there would be some massive creatures living in an ocean like that.

Cover a geothermaly unbalanced planet with Water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30549584)

Cover that planet with water on it's surface, and that water will insulate it to be just the right temperature. I'm surprised that most Scientists and Slashdot patrons ignore this fact that dropping the same amount of Earth water would make Mars livable by balancing the temperature. Stop looking for water under the soil, and always expect to see visible water on the poles where the lack of an O-zone layer above or below would allow the extremes to build. Just consider that water is important not as a foundation of life but a function to balance a planet's environment, geothermal extremes, as well as create the climate of winds in the air.

Get your ass to Mars first! Don't follow NASA's failure by making it into such a long sermon when it all makes more sence otherwise. [youtube.com]

What a misleading title (1, Funny)

adamchou (993073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545846)

I was hoping to read about a planet full of blond beauties in bikinis

Re:What a misleading title (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546410)

Re:What a misleading title (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30549070)

blond beauties in bikinis

2-out-of-3 good enough?

Well, ONE one of them is blonde.

Inaccurate article (5, Informative)

plavchan (1707148) | more than 4 years ago | (#30545982)

Contrary to what the article states, MEarth is not an amateur astronomy group. MEarth is headed by the former Discover Magazine's Scientist of the Year, Harvard professor David Charbonneau. The business of identifying tiny changes in the brightness in the star from among an ensemble of thousands of carefully selected targets is no easy task. That being said, many amateur scientists have been able to follow-up and confirm transiting planets. I say amateur, but many have telescope rigs and detectors costing upwards of $50k (USD). In that sense, the amateur community has contributed greatly to the follow-up of transiting planets. Also, the article mentions GJ 1214 to be 300 times "cooler" than the Sun. It's 300 times less luminous, not cooler (although the stellar surface is cooler by a factor of a few). I will wait for the confirmation of water from transit transmission and absorption spectroscopy.

Re:Inaccurate article (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30550224)

> Contrary to what the article states, MEarth is not an amateur astronomy group. MEarth is
> headed by the former Discover Magazine's Scientist of the Year, Harvard professor David Charbonneau.

Being headed by someone of high qualifications does not in any way preclude being an amateur group, especially in the older senses of the word "amateur".

Doesn't seem to hold water (1)

Minter92 (148860) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546216)

Reading the article doesn't add much credence to what they are claiming. Seems like an advertisement for some fringe group. The article is lacking in scientific explanation. How do they know there's water on the planet etc...

link no workie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546322)

when clicking on it, I something that runs on php spitting its guts in some sort of error (too lazy to go back and see what the error says.)

I'll say it... (4, Funny)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546382)

The real question on everyone's mind is when can we start having sex with the exotic natives?

Re:I'll say it... (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546532)

I must be getting old. I was wondering how they would be best cooked....

Re:I'll say it... (0, Offtopic)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30546734)

That reminds me of an old joke. What do you call a smiling roman with hair between his teeth?

A glad-'e-ate-'er

Re:I'll say it... (1)

Stupid McStupidson (1660141) | more than 4 years ago | (#30547380)

wokka wokka!

Re:I'll say it... (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30547078)

Old twilight zone joke. That book "How to Serve Man", it's a cookbook!

Re:I'll say it... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547464)

You first, my good man. We sincerely await your forthcoming J. Astrobio. paper, "Surprising Prevalence of Vaginal Dentata Amongst Tripedal Natives of GJ 1214" .

Re:I'll say it... (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30547794)

The real question on everyone's mind is when can we start having sex with the exotic natives?

Look around you. Everything non-human on this planet would qualify as 'exotic natives'. I'm fairly certain most would only go for the humanoid species, but what makes you think that any intelligent alien life form would be prettier than an orangutan?

Re:I'll say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547942)

Look around you. Everything non-human on this planet would qualify as 'exotic natives'. I'm fairly certain most would only go for the humanoid species, but what makes you think that any intelligent alien life form would be prettier than an orangutan?

Hey, shut up, man. If I've travelled 40 plus light years in a sublight vessel, I'm damn well going to do it with whatever I find when I get there. Biped, Triped, Dodecaped, whatever. Is her species sapient? Alright, then! I didn't spend the last hundred years frozen in this dinghy just to NOT get it on! Shave her butt, wash the stink off, and let's go!

Re:I'll say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30548088)

Easy there, Kirk.

Re:I'll say it... (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30550262)

You may not want to. The way it works for them is, the female captures a male, forces him into her reproductive organ, and clamps down, smothering him. As the male suffocates, his body convulses rapidly (which brings the female pleasure). When he is finally dead, the reproductive pods on his surface rupture, releasing his genetic material, which impregnates the female (if she is not using contraceptives). The pods also release a hormone which causes the female more pleasure. Her reproductive cavity then seals itself off to form a womb, and so she cannot have intercourse again for the duration of the thirty-year gestation period, but the hormone that causes libido continually builds up. When she finally gives birth (to a litter of thousands, most of them male), she can't take it any more and immediately goes looking for (adult) males again, sometimes stuffing three or four in there at once, thus impregnating herself again. By the time she gives birth to the new batch, the former batch of offspring are fully raised and have moved out on their own.

Of course, modern females use contraceptives most of the time, so they can suffocate a couple of males a day without becoming impregnated. This has really helped to even out the gender imbalance in the population.

Replace "life" with "life as we know it" in title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30546912)

Replace "life" in the article title with "life as we know it". Thermodynamics predicts we could have "life" (intelligent energy-based beings) on old Sol, but it wouldn't be life as we know it (it would be much, much faster, probably couldn't see us in the frozen void & couldn't receive radio waves -- too much noise).

Waterworld Goldilocks? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30547542)

I was half expecting Kevin Costner with long blonde hair.

Re:nothing new here (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30548208)

(thud)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>