Beyond Contact By Brian McConnell Unconfirmed error reports are from readers. They have not yet been approved or disproved by the author or editor and represent solely the opinion of the reader. This page was updated August 12, 2003 Here's a key to the markup: [page-number]: serious technical mistake {page-number}: minor technical mistake : important language/formatting problem (page-number): language change or minor formatting problem ?page-number?: reader question or request for clarification UNCONFIRMED errors and suggestions from readers: (n/a) n/a; "complimentary" is used instead of "complementary" twice (31) Fifth paragraph: "The example above" in this paragraph does not exist above, but rather on the next page. [68] top half (Deadly Probes Hypothesis); As stated, the Deadly Probes Hypothesis postulates Von Neuman probes that: i) detect EM radiation from planets, and ii) destroy such planets. However, there is a serious logical flaw here. Should a civilization construct a network of such probes, why would the probes wait for EM radiation? Given the existence of such probes, it would be trivial to detect earlier stages of a civilization's development by sending probes to each potential solar system or planet, and watching for the development of intelligent species (e.g. buildings, cities, lights, satellites, etc.) - or even life itself - from close up. (Since we are assuming von Neuman probes, this is simple to do since they are self- replicating.) (If a civilization were cautious / paranoid enough, they could even monitor planets remotely, and launch destructive countermeasures as soon as life-indicating ingredients were detected in an atmosphere.) Waiting until EM radiation has been sent out would be unnecessarily risky - how could one know that a new civilization hadn't developed fast enough to already be in space by the time countermeasures were taken, or indeed was paranoid enough to operate in stealth mode from day one (154) 1st paragraph; The phrase "as observed from Earth's equator" should come after, and not before, the phrase "whose primary frequency". (259), Para 2, Line 1. Typo - omission of word, possibly "ask". (272), Para 4, Line 2. Typo. (282), Para 2, Line 3. Typo - parentheses. (284), Note, Line 4. Typo - requires Line 5. Typo - critical. (324), Figure 18-5. Typo - descent. ?351? Line 2. States that "...all of the symbols, except 5101 and 5102 belong to the category 5000. However, inspection of Figure 20-2 shows 5101 and 5102 as belonging to category 5100, which in turn belongs to the category 5000. (362). First bullet. Typo - word omitted. <376> Para 2 Text refers to a graph which is not present. (380). Para 5 Text refers to Figure A-5 which is not present. (380) last paragraph; The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 380 refers to "Figure A-5", which doesn't appear. Presumably, Figure A-3 on page 378 is meant.