[dfryer]

The paper is much more conservative than the article about it. They're saying that the close relationship between the signal and the human-made second, plus the fact that most of these signals were observed at one particular telescope, suggests strongly that it's a local, human source.

"Paper doesn't rule out aliens" isn't a particularly strong statement. I've read many papers that don't rule out aliens, dragons OR unicorns.

[dchichkov]

The paper starts with: "Eleven FRBs have been detected so far, nine with the Parkes and one at the Arecibo telescope." That arithmetic is wrong. Tongue-in-the-cheek - April's fool?

edit: it actually seems more like a genuine typo in a pre-print. The list further in the article contains 10 FRBs from Parkes. edit 2: linked to the abstract.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245

[Sniffnoy]

A note -- if you're linking to arXiv, it's better to link to the abstract (http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245) rather than directly to the PDF. From the abstract, one can easily click through to the PDF; not so the reverse. And the abstract allows one to do things like see different versions of the paper, search for other things by the same authors, etc.

[cpeterso]

The eleventh could have been detected somewhere else.

[lotsofmangos]

Is always a good idea to not rule out aliens, just in case. Especially aliens with elaborate senses of humour. It might explain a lot.