Cassini Discovers First River On Another World

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cassini Discovers First River On Another World

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 13, 2012 @05:36AM from the ok-now-find-some-rafts dept.

AbsoluteXyro writes "NASA's Cassini orbiter, which has been dutifully exploring the Saturn system since 2004, has captured images of the first river ever observed on another world — and it's a biggun. 200 miles of flowing hydrocarbons meandering down a valley in the north polar region of Saturn's moon Titan, emptying into the awesomely named Kraken Mare — itself a body of liquid roughly the size of the Mediterranean Sea back on Earth. But don't think of going for an extraterrestrial skinny dip quite yet, temperatures on Titan average a brutally cold 290 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit)."

230 comments

Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 05:40 · Score: 0, Insightful

The reason for reporting temperatures in Fahrenheit is because they have intuitive meaning for us Merkins.
Minus two ninety doesn't fit that description; shoulda been Celsius.
1. Re:Fahrenheit? by uigrad_2000 · 2012-12-13 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is one of the few times that I'd rather see the temperature in the Rankine scale over Fahrenheit!
  Essentially, they had 4 systems to choose from (Kelvin would be ideal), and they picked the very worst choice!
  
  --
  Free unix account: freeshell.org
2. Re:Fahrenheit? by readin · 2012-12-13 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  This is one of the few times that I'd rather see the temperature in the Rankine scale over Fahrenheit!
  Essentially, they had 4 systems to choose from (Kelvin would be ideal), and they picked the very worst choice!
  Kelvin would have been better, but Fahrenheit wasn't the worst choice available. They could have chosen Celsius.
  
  --
  I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
3. Re:Fahrenheit? by PlastikMissle · 2012-12-13 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  How is Celsius worse than Fahrenheit in this situation?
4. Re:Fahrenheit? by dubbreak · 2012-12-13 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  Essentially, they had 4 systems to choose from (Kelvin would be ideal), and they picked the very worst choice!
  Not to mention Kelvin is SI base unit. Kinda the norm when you are talking about scientific news to a bunch of nerds. Remember the whole "News for nerds, stuff that matters" motto? Or did the spirit of that die when CmdrTaco left?
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
5. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's not "kelvins", it's "Kelvin".
  If you're going to correct someone it's a lot easier to be forgiven for being wrong yourself if you don't sling personal insults... you prat.
6. Re:Fahrenheit? by Jesse_vd · 2012-12-13 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm.... nope? Celsius is much more useful than Fahrenheit in virtually every application, and as far as I know only you USians still use it.
7. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  You must be French, defending metric like that...
8. Re:Fahrenheit? by gagol · 2012-12-13 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Non-US citizen would be more exact.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
9. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-13 07:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It'll be hard to pry away from us, too. There's more integers between 32 and 212 than between 0 and 100. So if you don't use decimal points, Fahrenheit is of a higher precision. Even still, when you're talking about temperatures never seen on earth, Kelvin or Celsius still make far more sense.
10. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect, and maybe you should take your own advice.
  Like any other SI unit, you are supposed to treat it like a simple noun and use lower case (unless some other rule, like start of a sentence, overrides). The same goes for newtons, pascals, amperes, etc. The only odd point is it is possible to refer to the Kelvin scale, which uses an adjective form of the name, not an adjective form of the unit.
11. Re:Fahrenheit? by SomeKDEUser · 2012-12-13 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  So your argument in favour of Fahrenheit is that americans don't understand decimals? That's weak...
12. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  FTFY:
  
  Ummm.... nope? Celsius is much more useful than Fahrenheit in virtually every scientific and engineeringapplication, and as far as I know only you USians still use it.
13. Re:Fahrenheit? by roc97007 · 2012-12-13 07:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No no, c'mon, don't be rude, he meant Kelvins, the rather underused temperature scale of lower Kyrgyzstan, first coined in 1552 by scientist and British transpat Sir Howie Rudestash Kelvins. 0 degrees Kelvins is defined as the freezing point of that congestion you get from too many fish and chips cooked in tallow, and 100 degrees is defined as the point where spotted dick catches fire.
  Really, this should be well known. Personally, I blame public schools.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
14. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-13 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  No - just that we prefer integers. It doesn't take much inertia to prevent a switchover. As the world can see.
15. Re:Fahrenheit? by angel'o'sphere · 2012-12-13 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  In the Celsius world, people also have an intuitive feeling for the temperature ;D
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
16. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Just looked through the thread to find how cold it actually is.
  Google says it is 95 Kelvin.
17. Re:Fahrenheit? by rwise2112 · 2012-12-13 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  No - just that we prefer integers.
  Except when you can use fractions - 3/8 inch for instance.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
18. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  But sadly the truth.
19. Re:Fahrenheit? by readin · 2012-12-13 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Americans use Fahrenheit too. Where is Usia? Or did you misspell Asia. There aren't too many Asians that use Fahrenheit.
  Fahrenheit give you more precision before needing to resort to decimal points or fractions. Fahrenheit neatly boxes what humans regularly experience between the values 0 and 100 while managing to have the freezing point of water at 2^5.
  
  --
  I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
20. Re:Fahrenheit? by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Fahrenheit is of a higher precision.
  I have never personally needed to know that the temperature is 38.2 degrees C outside.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
21. Re:Fahrenheit? by rwise2112 · 2012-12-13 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  In the Celsius world, people also have an intuitive feeling for the temperature ;D
  That might be true, but in this case these temperatures are not found on Earth, so none of us have anything to really compare it to.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
22. Re:Fahrenheit? by readin · 2012-12-13 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  FTFY
  
  FTFY:
  
  Ummm.... nope? Celsius is much more useful than Fahrenheit in virtually every application where the other people you're communicating with know Celcius but not Fahrenheit, and as far as I know only you Americans still use it.
  (AFIK there is no such places as Usia.)
  
  --
  I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
23. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-13 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  No - you may not need a tenfold increase in precision, but Fahrenheit does have double. The difference between 39 and 40 degrees Celsius is almost 2 degrees in fahrenheit.
24. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-13 09:08 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Dividing inches into halves and then into halves again is easy to measure visually. I personally don't like using mm all that often for measuring things just because the lines are too close together. I realize that rulers with inches shows a line every 1/16th of an inch, but the lines are usually different lengths. I don't know why that's not done for even numbers of mm on the metric side. It's a much easier spatial math to me.
25. Re:Fahrenheit? by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Even so I have never wanted to know that the temperature is 39.5 or 40 degrees for general "walking outside" purposes. Two or three degree precision is fine for me and thats about the accuracy you get from weather reports and cheap instruments anyway.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
26. Re:Fahrenheit? by styrotech · 2012-12-13 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Kelvin would have been better, but Fahrenheit wasn't the worst choice available. They could have chosen Celsius.
  Well Celsius is easier than Fahrenheit to convert to Kelvin.
27. Re:Fahrenheit? by anagama · 2012-12-13 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  And? The difference between 71F and 73F is not exactly something a human is tuned to. Depending on where you live and what you acclimated to, that temperature range might represent a hot day, or a cold day, but it would be the rare person who says 71 is comfortable but 73 is suffocatingly hot. For most people, a weather report broken down by Low, Mid, High and the tens place is good enough, i.e., "expect temperatures in the high 50s tomorrow" is a common way to express a weather report and good enough for people to know how to dress.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
28. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-13 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I've been thinking in terms of measuring a fever where 1 degree makes a huge difference even in Fahrenheit and not so much the weather.
29. Re:Fahrenheit? by painandgreed · 2012-12-13 09:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How is Celsius worse than Fahrenheit in this situation?
  I imagine it would be because Celsius is harder to determine due to the wooshing sound going on.
30. Re:Fahrenheit? by RMingin · 2012-12-13 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, because while you can insert decimals to Celsius to get a more meaningful range of values, you can do the same for Fahrenheit and get still MORE useable data points.
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
31. Re:Fahrenheit? by SomeKDEUser · 2012-12-13 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is silly: units are not "better" because they are smaller (otherwise, one has to conclude that centimeters are better than inches and pounds better than kilos and seconds are better than hours).
  A unit is better if the scale makes sense. for a unit used commonly, degrees Celsius makes sense: from water freezes to water boils. Fahrenheit goes from "saturated brine solution freezes" to "temperature of a human wil a slight fever". This is seriously indefensible shit right there :)
32. Re:Fahrenheit? by RMingin · 2012-12-13 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Strange, based on your username I wouldn't have expected you to bypass the logic of the argument and rush to straw men.
  Let me restate:
  Nobody gives a shit where you keep 0 degrees or 100 degrees. It simply does not matter.
  Fahrenheit is good for body temps and weather, as those are generally confined to the upper end of the first hundred degrees F.
  Celsius is better for communication and scientific measurement, particularly once you leave the easily-habitated parts of Earth behind. It's a better standard for measuring extreme cold and heat.
  I'm not telling anyone that your precious Celsius is garbage. I'm just saying that for weather and body temp measurement, there are demonstrable advantages to Fahrenheit, simply because it has a finer numbering scale in those specific areas.
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
33. Re:Fahrenheit? by lgw · 2012-12-13 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Depends what you use the units for. Celsius is just a bit coarse for the most common use for a temperature scale: setting a thermostat. Degrees F are spaced the right amount for setting a digital thermostat, while degrees C need half-degree steps - awkward.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
34. Re:Fahrenheit? by SomeKDEUser · 2012-12-13 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Again, the finer numbering system argument is, to me, just absurd. For me, it is much more important to have a scale that makes sense.
  I am going to guess that you are American, and that it never occurer to you that Fahrenheit makes no sense at all if you were not raised with it. I have no problem dealing with miles: the conversion is not so straightforward to km, but it's ok: just a linear factor. Pounds and kg, sure, fine, same thing. Hell, inches and feet are alright, as long as you don't start using fractions to compare them (seriously, what is larger: 5/16 or 3/8 -- of course you can figure it out, but 0.31 and 0.19 are so much easier to compare) .
  Fahrenheit? you are talking noise to me. And I know the scale and what it means: it is just too painful to try and figure it out. It may well be that you are pointing the finger on something which had not made sense to me until now: there is a phobia of decimal places in America. Why? Mystery.
35. Re:Fahrenheit? by SomeKDEUser · 2012-12-13 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  it's a digital thermometer! it is typically correct to 0.1 C. Display it!
36. Re:Fahrenheit? by angel'o'sphere · 2012-12-13 10:32 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but my parent (any many americans repeat that claim all the time about temperature and lengths) was of the opinion that Fahrenheit is particular well suited to develop an intuitive feeling for temperature (or in case of feet and inches for distances). My point is, you always develop an intuitive feeling for the typical units used in your society. That is something humans are good at ;D Does not matter if it is a foot or chakku or meter.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
37. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  I'm the OP, and actually I was making both your and gp's point.
  The only reason for anyone to ever publish temperatures in Fahrenheit is because they're intuitive for Americans.
  Obviously normal Earth-range Celsius temperatures are intuitive to the rest of the world.
  But Titan's temperature is beyond anyone's experience, so it should have been given in a scientific scale.
38. Re:Fahrenheit? by jimmetry · 2012-12-13 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Comment Moderation: +1 "Oh Snap"
39. Re:Fahrenheit? by jouassou · 2012-12-13 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, having a separate unit of temperature at all is quite artificial. In physical formulae, temperature always appears as a product kT; here k is Boltzmanns constant, which basically converts between your chosen units of temperature and energy.
  
  Boltzmanns constant can often get cumbersome to drag around, so it's common to just set k=1 in physics. You then end up measuring temperature in units of energy (which makes sense since it is related to the thermal energy per particle), and as a bonus, this makes entropy dimensionless (so we can measure information in "bits", just as in computer science.)
40. Re:Fahrenheit? by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-12-13 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  At least they could mark 5mm
41. Re:Fahrenheit? by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sure then you use one significant digit to the right of the decimal point in celcius.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
42. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe that is why the cheap thermometer I use for such things goes in increments of 0.5 F and 0.2 C, because we are not limited to using just integers or tenths. That is probably closer to more "serious" use of temperature anyways, where you just give error bounds that reflect the actual error when it actually matters, which may not align with a nice power of ten or even may not be symmetric.
43. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  That is essentially what the new definition of kelvins will probably do: fix Boltzmann's constant to a fixed value (just not one, as I don't think people would be a fan of room temperature being 4 zepto-joules, at least for "normal" people). Usually they are kind of slow at redefining units, making sure that the new method can be done more accurately.
44. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  That is essentially what the new definition of kelvins will probably do: fix Boltzmann's constant to a fixed value (just not one, as I don't think people would be a fan of room temperature being 4 zepto-joules, at least for "normal" people). Usually they are kind of slow at redefining units, making sure that the new method can be done more accurately.
45. Re:Fahrenheit? by Jesse_vd · 2012-12-13 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=USian
  I am Canadian. Canada is in North America, which makes up approximately half of the Americas. Therefore I am American. I do not use Fahrenheit.
  Fahrenheit is used in the United States of America, often referred to as 'The Unites States' or simply 'The US'. USian.
  Celsius neatly boxes what water regularly experiences between the values 0 and 100 while managing to have the freezing point of water at 0.
  See what I did there?
46. Re:Fahrenheit? by Jesse_vd · 2012-12-13 16:27 · Score: 2
  
  I've ruler I've ever owned does exactly that.
47. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  French is more exact but less accurate.
48. Re:Fahrenheit? by smellotron · 2012-12-13 16:39 · Score: 2
  
  The difference between 71F and 73F is not exactly something a human is tuned to.
  
  Having a home with poor air circulation and a thermostat which runs warm as a consequence, I have to disagree: in the winter, a few degrees Fahrenheit in the 66-72 range are definitely noticeable.
49. Re:Fahrenheit? by Jesse_vd · 2012-12-13 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Doh. Every ruler*
50. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  Nationality is derived from the name of the country, not the continent. Since the United States of America is the only country with "America" in its name, it makes perfect and proper sense that people from the USA are called "American".
51. Re:Fahrenheit? by Eraesr · 2012-12-13 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  This is actually an interesting point, but it works against you. You see, Americans' fear of decimals leads them to use a scale with a finer precision. I'm not too familiar with the conversion, but from this discussion I understand that 1 degree C is roughly the same interval as 2 degrees F. So when you're taking someone's temperature, then you're getting a precision of 0.5 degrees Celsius, while my European thermometer, which indicates temperature in 1/10ths of degrees has a precision of 0.1 degrees Celsius.
  I'm not familiar with American thermometers, they might have a single decimal digit as well, which would move that precision towards 0.05 degrees C, but that sort of precision is not necessary and it turns the "no decimals" argument on it's head.
52. Re:Fahrenheit? by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-12-13 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Funny argument, Mr Fogg. I've hardly ever seen anybody use decimal points talking about temperature. It's already very hard to tell the difference bewteen, say, 23C and 25C so 23.5C are mostly considered useless pseudo-precision, unless in a technical process where readings are automated anyway.
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
53. Re:Fahrenheit? by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-12-13 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. He ment "Kevins" - the traditional unit for stupidity in German school classes. One dozen Kevins (dK) reduces the average IQ to 1/12.
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
54. Re:Fahrenheit? by Hognoxious · 2012-12-13 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or 1/2 wit, like the GP.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
55. Re:Fahrenheit? by Hognoxious · 2012-12-13 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Garbage. You think a domestic heating thermostat is accurate to one degree of either scale? The variation between different points in the room will be more than that anyway.
  For anything where more precision is needed, whether science or jam making, you'd be using fractions anyway.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
56. Re:Fahrenheit? by Hognoxious · 2012-12-14 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I've been thinking in terms of measuring a fever
  I hope you are not employed in any clinical capacity, and trust you have only entered a hospital as a patient or experimental subject.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
57. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying that 2 = 6?
58. Re:Fahrenheit? by Hognoxious · 2012-12-14 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  There is, that really fast guy comes from there.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
59. Re:Fahrenheit? by Hognoxious · 2012-12-14 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  In physical formulae, temperature always appears as a product kT.
  PV = nRT. Is it hiding behind the R?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
60. Re:Fahrenheit? by Hognoxious · 2012-12-14 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, they had to start with something.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
61. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  The gas constant, R, is just Avogadro's number times Boltzmann's constant, so the ideal gas law is PV=n N_A k_b T, or just PV=N k_b T if you use particle count instead of amount measured in moles.
62. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-14 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  We use tenths of a degree for Fahrenheit on a thermometer, too. But in casual conversation you can drop off the decimal and still be somewhat more accurate. I never said I had a strong case or anything - just that there's arbitrary reasons we're still on our scale.
63. Re:Fahrenheit? by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  There's more integers between 32 and 212 than between 0 and 100. So if you don't use decimal points, Fahrenheit is of a higher precision
  That is by far the feeblest argument I have ever seen in defence of anything. Ever.
  If you're going for higher precision than the nearest degree, you need decimal points anyway. E.g. if you want the average human body temperature you have to write 98.6 F anyway. And if you're talking about the weather the difference between 71 and 72 F is as irrelevant as the difference between 21 and 22 C
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
64. Re:Fahrenheit? by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just saying that for weather and body temp measurement, there are demonstrable advantages to Fahrenheit, simply because it has a finer numbering scale in those specific areas.
  0.1 of a degree is far finer a difference than any normal person would ever use to measure body temperature by, and as for weather, the nearest degree is fine in everyday use whether it's F or C.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
65. Re:Fahrenheit? by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  No - you may not need a tenfold increase in precision, but Fahrenheit does have double. The difference between 39 and 40 degrees Celsius is almost 2 degrees in fahrenheit.
  So what? It's not like 40 degrees instead of 39 Celsius is somehow going to kill you. Have you ever been in a situation where it has made any difference whatsoever whether it's 104 degrees Fahrenheit or just 103?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
66. Re:Fahrenheit? by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I've been thinking in terms of measuring a fever where 1 degree makes a huge difference even in Fahrenheit and not so much the weather.
  If you're measuring a fever you should use decimal places whether it's F or C.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
67. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-14 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's the tiniest pebble of resistance to changing to Celsius. See the original post. That may not be a good reason at all, but we don't have good reasons. We have reasons in the general sense, and I was just listing them.
68. Re:Fahrenheit? by omnichad · 2012-12-14 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but if I'm calling in sick to work, for example, I can round to the nearest degree and it's still fairly clear what you're communicating. Whereas 1 degree rounding difference in Celsius is huge on that small range of survivable human body temps.
69. Re:Fahrenheit? by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  The difference between 71F and 73F is not exactly something a human is tuned to.
  Having a home with poor air circulation and a thermostat which runs warm as a consequence, I have to disagree: in the winter, a few degrees Fahrenheit in the 66-72 range are definitely noticeable.
  Nobody's saying that there isn't a noticeable difference between 66F and 72 F (19C and 22C)
  It just has no bearing on whether there's a noticeable difference between 71F and 73F (22 and 23C), which for any normal person there wouldn't be.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
70. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Not to the rest of the world.
  An American may be from Canada or Brazil, just like a European may be from Norway or Italy, and an Asian may be from China or Japan.
  But of course the USians, who don't believe in "the rest of the world" anyway, don't see a problem with claiming that Americans prefer Fahrenheit. Canada is, after all, a part of the rest of the world, and as such doesn't exist in the mind of USians.
71. Re:Fahrenheit? by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Fahrenheit neatly boxes what humans regularly experience between the values 0 and 100 while managing to have the freezing point of water at 2^5.
  You Americans are coming up with the most fantastical justifications. I'm English and was brought up using Fahrenheit (and then later had to learn Celsius) but even I fail to see the magic advantage of having the freezing point of water as 2^5 degrees.
  Also, 0F is -18C and 100F is 38F and that is a peculiarly arbitrary set of limits to what humans regularly experience. In the UK, the range is more like -10C to 32C, in the Middle East it would be up to 45C and in Scandinavia down to -25C, and there's nothing particularly meaningful about it being 113F or -13F respectively.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
72. Re:Fahrenheit? by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  In UK English usage "American" means someone from the USA. If you're from Canada you're Canadian, and if you're from Mexico you're Mexican.
  Just saying. After all, it's our language...
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
73. Re:Fahrenheit? by smellotron · 2012-12-14 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  I did not say that the total range is noticeable. I said that 2deg F is noticeable in that range. We are more sensitive to temperature variation than you are giving credit for.
74. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  I have to disagree: in the winter, a few degrees Fahrenheit in the 66-72 range are definitely noticeable.
  Nobody's saying that there isn't a noticeable difference between 66F and 72 F (19C and 22C)
  You fail at reading comprehension, having missed most of the significant phrase, "few degrees [...] in the [...] range."
75. Re:Fahrenheit? by monkeykoder · 2012-12-14 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  Oddly enough Celsius is indeed better for this use. 1* Celsius is approximately the amount of difference in temperature it takes for the human body to say "hey the temperature changed"
76. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  I have no problem with and can understand the difference between American and North American, and I am from neither. You don't speak for "the rest of the world," as most English speaking places I've been to have used American unambiguously for some one from the USA. Now in other languages it is different, but that is something that is easily dealt with in translation.
77. Re:Fahrenheit? by Jesse_vd · 2012-12-14 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  That is the typical usage. I don't believe it's very accurate.
  I can call you a European since you live in Europe. Why can't I be an American because I live in the Americas?
  America is much bigger than the US of A
78. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  You can call someone a North American or South American and be quite clear.
79. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  No no, c'mon, don't be rude, he meant Kelvins, the rather underused temperature scale of lower Kyrgyzstan, first coined in 1552 by scientist and British transpat Sir Howie Rudestash Kelvins. 0 degrees Kelvins is defined as the freezing point of that congestion you get from too many fish and chips cooked in tallow, and 100 degrees is defined as the point where spotted dick catches fire.
  Really, this should be well known. Personally, I blame public schools.
  I think you are confusing to Kelvins with Calvins
80. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-15 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  As people who live in countries that have snow know, when it gets below 32F/0C, further temperatures are much better served in Fahrenheit. -5C is jacket weather, but not really all that cold. All negative temperatures in Fahrenheit are "stay the $*@! indoors" cold.
81. Re:Fahrenheit? by toddestan · 2012-12-15 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  You mean using a ratio of integers instead of a decimal representation?
82. Re:Fahrenheit? by Nocturna81 · 2012-12-18 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  0C Also known as: ice forming aka stuff gets slippery. So yea, living in a country that "has snow" I kind of like the 0 degree for water freezing thing, it reminds me to look out on the road to work.
No running. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 05:41 · Score: 5, Funny

No bombing.
Diving permitted at deep end only.
NO SMOKING.
1. Re:No running. by Megane · 2012-12-13 08:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Oh, it's perfectly safe from fire. See, a hydrocarbon world like that is a chemical Bizarro World. It's the oxidizers that you have to keep under control.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
2. Re:No running. by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Though I wonder if there could be fossil oxidisers frozen under ground on Titan. If they could be found and dug up, there could be a chemical energy industry on Titan.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:No running. by Phase+Shifter · 2012-12-13 08:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Oh, it's perfectly safe from fire. See, a hydrocarbon world like that is a chemical Bizarro World. It's the oxidizers that you have to keep under control.
  Indeed.
  I've occasionally wondered whether anyone at NASA has ever designed a UAV with oxygen or fluorine tanks instead of fuel tanks, for use on worlds with hydrogen/hydrocarbon atmospheres.
4. Re:No running. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Also no petting or gymnastics.
  Oh, and don't tit about on ladders.
5. Re:No running. by Megane · 2012-12-13 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  The fun part would be figuring out how to test such a beast.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 05:42 · Score: 0

NASA does not use the metric system even for temperatures!?!?
1. Re:Metric system, please by X0563511 · 2012-12-13 06:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  ... are you stupid? Of course they use proper units.
  This is a press release intended for the general public.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
2. Re:Metric system, please by jo_ham · 2012-12-13 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  ... are you stupid? Of course they use proper units.
  This is a press release intended for the general public.
  You'd think so, but tell that to the Mars Climate Orbiter which was expecting SI units but instead was given horses per submarine per twatwaffle or some other such ancient unit and took a steep dive into the atmosphere and burned up.
3. Re:Metric system, please by oPless · 2012-12-13 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Horses per Submarine!
  You have made my day. If I only had mod points this evening!
4. Re:Metric system, please by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-12-13 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know many people who use the metric system for temperature. Each thermometer is different, if I told you that I have 4.5 cm in my room, you wouldn't be much wiser.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:Metric system, please by Samantha+Wright · 2012-12-13 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  Bzzt. Kelvin is an SI unit.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
6. Re:Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  And you think saying it's 1.75 inches would be better?
7. Re:Metric system, please by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. An error made by the contractor, who used His Majesty's standard, while NASA specs all of their requirements in metric.
8. Re:Metric system, please by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 06:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I couldn't even tell you how high the temperature is right now, as my thermometer is laying on its side. I can only give you its length.
9. Re:Metric system, please by GrahamJ · 2012-12-13 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Most of the world uses Celsius. Maybe you should travel more :)
10. Re:Metric system, please by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-12-13 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm Canadian, you insensitive clod, and I'm not impressed by your 4.5 cm.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
11. Re:Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  In my experience working with different national labs, including some collaboration with work by NASA, whatever temperature scale is most convenient is what gets used: C, F, K, eV. If you have a piece of equipment that reads out in Fahrenheit and only care about keeping some temperature constant, instructions and notes are probably going to be recorded in Fahrenheit. Stuff that involves communication with a wider audience of researchers will probably default in K, C, or eV depending on temperature range.
12. Re:Metric system, please by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-12-13 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Bzzt. Kelvin is an SI unit.
  He could have said SI then. Or is it that in the US, these two things are synonymous? Where I live, temperatures sort of aren't a part of the definition of "metric system" (although naturally, they're a part of the SI extensions).
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
13. Re:Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  No wonder they're having trouble converting between unit systems, ftfa:
  
  200 miles (400 kilometers)
  I hope they can make more precise conversions when doing serious stuff :)
14. Re:Metric system, please by bytesex · 2012-12-13 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well it does tend to shrink when it gets colder, doesn't it?
  
  --
  Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
15. Re:Metric system, please by Beorytis · 2012-12-13 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is a press release intended for the general public.
  Ordinarily I would agree with you. Fahrenheit was intended to relate to the physical realm that humans experience: 0 is about the temperature of freezing seawater and 100 is about the temperature of the human body. In this case though, the temperature is well below what the general public has direct knowledge of. It should have been listed in K first, with F in parentheses just so the US general public reader would get that it's way colder than anything ever measured on Earth.
16. Re:Metric system, please by Samantha+Wright · 2012-12-13 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, 'the metric system' is generally used in North America to indicate the SI system, in contrast to traditional units (imperial in Canada, customary in US.) Drawing a distinction between the core metric units and the other SI extensions would be an unnecessary level of hair-splitting; we'd call those... I dunno, metric spacetime units, but that's definitely not a distinction people need to draw often, so the meaning disappears due to conservation of Huffman coding space.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
17. Re:Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  0C is the freezing temperature of fresh water, which is far more relevant a point than anything to do with seawater (and Fahrenheit didn't use real seawater anyway, it was ammonium chloride). 0C is the point your drinking water freezes, which is a lot more relevant to most humans. If immersed in freezing seawater or freezing freshwater you'll be dead before you have much time to think about the difference in human perception between 0F and 0C. They're both deadly without special protection. 10C is cool but easy to handle with a light coat, 20C is comfortable room temperature. Anything over 30C is freaking hot. Divide between those points accordingly. 100C is the temperature of boiling water (at STP) that you shouldn't be sticking your hands into.
  I don't buy the "human experience" aspect at all for the silliness that is Fahrenheit. The freezing point of fresh water is THE most important point on a temperature scale relating to human effects, and Celsius puts that at a logical 0 rather than weird 32. I always thought it was dumb that you had to do a bit of albeit simple math to figure out how many degrees you were above or below the freezing point using the Fahrenheit scale. With Celsius, it's the + or -. Much simpler.
  It's just what you're used to, and I see no downside to Celsius at all. Furthermore, Celsius degrees are a little bigger than Fahrenheit degrees. Less precise, you say? Human perception can't reliably tell the difference between 1 degree F anyway, and struggles to consistently perceive Celsius degrees (I can usually estimate +-2 or 3 Celsius at best).
  At -179C, it doesn't really matter if it is in F or C. It's far outside normal human experience unless you have a habit of dipping body parts in liquified gases.
18. Re:Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  You'd think so, but tell that to the Mars Climate Orbiter which was expecting SI units but instead... took a steep dive into the atmosphere and burned up.
  SI is very dangerous.
19. Re:Metric system, please by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-12-13 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I'm just coming from a different cultural background. We have had the term "International system of units" ad the official name embodied in our law since the 1960's and "metric system" was something you heard in connection with the French revolution in your history lessons.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
20. Re:Metric system, please by rwise2112 · 2012-12-13 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well it does tend to shrink when it gets colder, doesn't it?
  At those temperatures, it's propabably an innie.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
21. Re:Metric system, please by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  They sometimes do metric conversions ;)
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
22. Re:Metric system, please by readin · 2012-12-13 08:55 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  10C is cool but easy to handle with a light coat, 20C is comfortable room temperature. Anything over 30C is freaking hot.
  This is a good example of why we like Fahrenheit. We can easily talk about more than three temperature ranges. In the 30s you need a warm but not superwarm coat. In the 40s you need similar coat but you'll feel more comfortable wearing it. In the 50s you have light jacket weather. In the 60s the light jacket is optional. The 70s are perfect. The 80s are hot enough for swimming but not uncomfortably hot. The 90s are uncomfortably hot. Over 100 and you pretty much stay indoors.
  
  If you want to be more precise you can say the "low 90s" (still good swimming weather) or "high 90s" (good swimming weather for youngster, indoor weather for older people)
  
  And in the winter w can talk about the weather being in the 20s or teens, or perhaps near 0. It has to get pretty cold before we need to go negative (although there are plenty of places up north that need to do that regularly).
  
  --
  I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
23. Re:Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  ...His Majesty's standard...
  Her!!!
  Queen Liz: Guards! Seize Sentrion! I never want to hear from him again!
24. Re:Metric system, please by lgw · 2012-12-13 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  All of which is truee but unimportant. We al lknow the One True System of measure is the Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight system! And which temperature scale goes with that? Hint: it's not Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight-Electronvolt.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
25. Re:Metric system, please by BotnetZombie · 2012-12-13 10:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You do realize that there are quite a few integers between 10 and 20, and between 20 and 30, that serve the same distinguishing purpose as your precise splitting into 40-50-60-70-80-90, don't you?
26. Re:Metric system, please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  I've always seen metric to mean loosely base ten scaling with prefixes. This would be a superset of the SI system. But effectively, for most people, it only refers to SI( mks + Celsius scale instead of Kelvin scale, as subtler differences and specific technical definitions of the units aren't relevant for most day-to-day stuff). Plus for the occasional metric time joke. So SI becomes kind of synonymous, probably because most people have not had the fun of dealing with other metric systems, like meter-tonne-second system, or the CGS system... I prefer to measure capacitance in farads, not centimeters.
27. Re:Metric system, please by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  horses per submarine per twatwaffle
  Mod parent up.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
28. Re:Metric system, please by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  0 is about the temperature of freezing seawater
  I have never encountered freezing seawater, and will quite happily die without ever having encountered freezing seawater. I do not care what the temperature of freezing seawater is, any more than I care what the temperature of molten lava is. If I'm anywhere near either of them, the only thing I want to know is how to get away from them.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
29. Re:Metric system, please by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  And in the winter w can talk about the weather being in the 20s or teens, or perhaps near 0. It has to get pretty cold before we need to go negative (although there are plenty of places up north that need to do that regularly).
  In the UK we just like to know whether it's above or below freezing point. To be honest, whether it's -1C or -15C doesn't really make that much difference, you're still going to have iced up cars, roads like skid pans, trains cancelled and schools shut and so on.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
30. Re:Metric system, please by toddestan · 2012-12-15 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  For a "human experience" scale though, being able to divide it up into decades is pretty convenient though. I've never really "gotten" Celsius. I understand it, but for scientific work Kelvin is a much better scale since it starts at zero, and for things like describing the weather Fahrenheit just seems a better fit.
Conspiracy can begin by epSos-de · 2012-12-13 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

The white spots on the river banks look like population hot-spots on earth.

Let the conspiracy theorists begin making up stuff.
Surely they will claim something about extra-terrestrial cities and FBI secrets.

--
~ Best man at your service.
1. Re:Conspiracy can begin by displague · 2012-12-13 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Flood regions, differing elevations, geological compositions, and sediment deposits (maybe phosphorous ones, that'd be cool)..
  or street lamps, apartment buildings, and neon lights.
  
  --
  Marques Johansson
2. Re:Conspiracy can begin by babtras · 2012-12-13 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  Considering this is radar and not visible spectrum, it isn't street lights. Clearly they pave their roads with something radar-reflective.
3. Re:Conspiracy can begin by epSos-de · 2012-12-13 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  I can do lamer than that. How exactly is that karma whoring.
  
  How do you personally define karma whoring ???
  
  --
  ~ Best man at your service.
4. Re:Conspiracy can begin by epSos-de · 2012-12-13 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  Thank you very much. You just gave an idea of how the aliens use geological compositions and sediment deposits to pave their roads with something radar-reflective.
  
  With your help, we are going to give more credit to the conspiracy.
  
  --
  ~ Best man at your service.
5. Re:Conspiracy can begin by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  something radar-reflective.
  Rough surfaces. Perhaps piles of rocks/ice.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:How could water be flowing by Excelsior · 2012-12-13 05:44 · Score: 5, Informative

I get that no one on Slashdot RTFA, but this time even the description says "200 miles of flowing hydrocarbons."
Re:How could water be flowing by serviscope_minor · 2012-12-13 05:44 · Score: 1

Try reading the summary to find out that it's hydrocarbons.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's a Martian canal system! by dkleinsc · 2012-12-13 05:44 · Score: 0, Redundant

I mean, it could be a river, or it could be something else. Let's plan on taking a closer look before deciding what this thing really is.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:It's a Martian canal system! by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe it's a road system, and what we pick up as hydrocarbons is just the exhaust emissions from their congested traffic.
2. Re:It's a Martian canal system! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  A tentacle Cthulhu?
A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 05:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Next up on Fox News - Terrorists on Saturn's moon are out to destroy America! Support out troops! Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!
1. Re:A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Next up on CNN: Are the Tea-Partiers responsible for the erosion damage on Saturn's largest moon?
2. Re:A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by idontgno · 2012-12-13 06:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Don't forget: "Global warming responsible for receding icepack on Titan"
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
3. Re:A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  CBSNEWS: Sarah Palin announces she can see Titan from the shore of Alaska.
4. Re:A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  And in the Weekly World News, Bat-Boy announces his plans to visit Elvis on Titan.
5. Re:A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  The joke doesn't work because the "liberal" media uses facts and truths, whereas conservative news just makes things up.
  That's why OP's joke worked, because Fox has a rich history of deliberately lying and twisting the truth to make sensational news. That happens with liberal news sources too, but not nearly at the same scale.
  So I appreciate what you are doing but I hope you understand why it didn't work.
6. Re:A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by Obfuscant · 2012-12-13 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget: "Anthropogenic Global warming responsible for receding icepack on Titan"
  FTFY.
7. Re:A literal sea of hydrocarbons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  Shame on you for implying that the Liberal, Democratic news sources are less than honest. Only those evil Conservative Republicans do such things.
Re:How could water be flowing by WWJohnBrowningDo · 2012-12-13 05:48 · Score: 5, Informative

Two factors:
It's hydrocarbons, not water.
Titan's surface pressure is 1.5 bars, 50% higher than Earth.
Rivers & methane seas already known by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 05:50 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't get how this is new. Cassini has been detecting branching river systems and large lakes (Great Lakes size) filled with liquid methane since early in the mission. This latest release is adding to the mapped area, but isn't particularly new in that regard. However, if you read the original NASA press release on the Cassini web site, it makes more sense. This is not the first, but the longest river system that has been observed so far on Titan, at about 400km long.
1. Re:Rivers & methane seas already known by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
2. Re:Rivers & methane seas already known by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Everything on the internet is true!
Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by nicoleb_x · 2012-12-13 05:51 · Score: 2

Hmm, hydrocarbons and not a plant in sight? I'm thinking we might want to stop calling oil and natural gas fossil fuels.
1. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  They're called fossil fuels because that's how they were formed on Earth.
2. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by uigrad_2000 · 2012-12-13 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  The term "Natural Gas" is to indicate that it is not from plant or animal remains.
  Even though crude oil does contain hydrocarbons, it is far from the most abundant source of them. Crude oil is a fossil fuel. Natural gas is not.
  
  --
  Free unix account: freeshell.org
3. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by MarriedGeek · 2012-12-13 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, some people now refer to them as Primordial Fuels.
  
  --
  sig = null;
4. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by uigrad_2000 · 2012-12-13 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, just after posting that, I looked it up. Wikipedia says:
  
  Most natural gas was created over time by two mechanisms: biogenic and thermogenic.
  And, it turns out, natural gas is generally considered a fossil fuel. So, I was pretty much wrong.
  
  --
  Free unix account: freeshell.org
5. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by ColdWetDog · 2012-12-13 06:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Where to begin....
  "Fossil fuels' are mostly compressed algae and diatoms although the carbon sources doesn't really make any difference - it's just hydrogenated carbon chains squished under a lot of pressure, heat and time that flow into relatively impermeable areas and collect. It is NOT mostly bits of T. rex and friends. Coal is an early form of this process - less time and heat and pressure - so you can occasionally see the original (mostly plant) source material.
  Natural gas refers to the various blends of short chain hydrocarbons that are created in the process and that tend to migrate to different places (but not always). "Oil" tends to be longer chains. Oil sands (oil rock) has long chains imbedded in an annoying matrix of one composition or another. Natural gas is a 'fossil fuel' although the term is not a very apt description of how the stuff was produced. All of those descriptions are arbitrary and the material is produced along a spectrum.
  Hopefully, you are not trying to be an abiotic oil nutcase.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  I produce natural gas all the time...
7. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  The occurrence of non-biological hydrocarbons on Titan or on Earth does not negate the evidence that demonstrates the vast majority of hydrocarbons in the crust of the Earth are biogenic. Picking two random examples of evidence, look up the subject of biomarkers or the optical activity of oils (related to chirality of the biological materials from which oil is derived). Non-biological processes can't easily explain these. Then there is the observation that rocks high in organic carbon (source rocks) can be chemically matched one-to-one with oils.
  While non-biological hydrocarbons certainly exist on Earth and are scientifically interesting (e.g., methane is expelled from some volcanoes), they are commercially insignificant as fuels. The only hydrocarbons in the Earth that are used as fuels are indeed fossil-derived. Although some methane is also derived from shallower/younger biogenic decay too, this is only significant in a few deposits and is still biological in origin even if it isn't "fossil".
8. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 06:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That's not what my Bible says. Where are you getting your information?
9. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  On earth, they are fossil fuels. On Titan, they are not.
10. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by roc97007 · 2012-12-13 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  We've been meaning to talk to you about that.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
11. Re:Oil may not be a fossil fuel then? by ShanghaiBill · 2012-12-13 07:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  They're called fossil fuels because that's how they were formed on Earth.
  Correction: They're called fossil fuels because that's how we think they were formed on Earth. There is not much evidence for abiogenic hydrocarbons, but their isn't enough evidence to rule them out either. Coal clearly came from fossils, but for oil and gas it is still an open question.
Celsius or Kelvin please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 05:52 · Score: 0

IMHO
Using the Fahrenheit scale for low temperatures in the popular press is bad.
It leads PHBs to insist on using non-standard scientific measurements for designs.
Even Rankine would be better.
If someone doesn't know something they shouldn't be coddled.
They can get off FaceBook/Twitter and google the temperature and learn something.
1. Re:Celsius or Kelvin please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt the writer is trying to coddle the reader. Chances are, the writer doesn't know anything other than Fahrenheit.
2. Re:Celsius or Kelvin please by readin · 2012-12-13 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Highly unlikely. Americans have been learning Celsius since the 1970s. AFAIK every other country has succumbed to using Celsius only. So anyone using Fahrenheit is likely to be American and is therefor likely to know Celsius. This is especially true for NASA which uses metric for pretty much everything.
  For some reason the writer didn't feel bound to use the government mandated system and therefore chose the more convenient Fahrenheit system.
  
  --
  I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
3. Re:Celsius or Kelvin please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  NASA uses SI, not Metric.
  Yes, there is a difference.
  Much like Americans use US Customary, not Imperial.
  Because, again, there is a difference.
4. Re:Celsius or Kelvin please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  It leads PHBs to insist on using non-standard scientific measurements for designs.
  What does that matter though? If you need to compare it to a temperature from elsewhere in Celsius or need to switch to an absolute scale, you convert and move on. As long as the original design contains the correct temperature and has a clearly defined scale, the rest is a matter of convenience.
  
  If someone doesn't know something they shouldn't be coddled.
  And conversion isn't that difficult...
5. Re:Celsius or Kelvin please by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  NASA uses SI, not Metric.
  Yes, there is a difference... and in the more general sense NASA uses metric, as I know quite a few people there that still prefer the cgs system over SI. NASA seems to use more SI than anything else, but they do use quite a bit else.
Re:How could water be flowing by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2012-12-13 05:53 · Score: 1

At least according to wikipedia it's most likely liquid methane and ethane. (I think oil and gasoline are longer hydrocarbon chains like octane, nonane, etc.)

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
It's not so cold. by danomac · 2012-12-13 05:56 · Score: 4, Informative

It's only -179 C. Not exactly shorts weather, mind you.
1. Re:It's not so cold. by aliquis · 2012-12-13 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you. I was coming here to complain about the Fahrenheits.
  Kelvin may make the most sense and if nothing else use celsius since that's what most (?) of the world use (I know Slashdot is home of Americans and ran in the U.S.)
  The rather obvious comparision for me would be water ice since I find ice hard to take a dip or swim in. And it's convenient to compare against 0 degrees with a negative number. But the Fahrenheit number didn't mean much to me.
  I did got that it was likely cold and as such and compared to some really cool Kelvin works to.
2. Re:It's not so cold. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  At that temperature, Oxygen is nearly a liquid (it boils at -182.95 C at 1 bar - Titan is 1.5 bar, so it may be liquid).
  Maybe going to Titan isn't such a bad idea after all.
  It sounds like the moon is made of rocket fuel that's already in cryogenic storage.
3. Re:It's not so cold. by roc97007 · 2012-12-13 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on what you're used to.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
4. Re:It's not so cold. by iroll · 2012-12-13 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  What you are saying doesn't make any sense.
  You have no better sense of how cold "really cold" is beyond "colder than ice," and you obviously would have got that from Fahrenheit, as well.
  Let's go the other direction. What difference would it make if I told you that the temperature in an oven was 300 C or 600 F? They're both "really hot" and "hotter than boiling water." Neither one gives you a better sense of how hot, because your body certainly wouldn't know the difference between 200, 300, or 400 C. They're all "hot."
  The difference between C and F matters when we talk about the temperature range that our bodies might experience--say, (-10) to 40 C and 0 to 100 F. There it can be confusing, because it's hard for a person who is used to a "warm day" in Fahrenheit (80 - 90) to mentally scale it to C (27 - 32). But for extrema, it's all "hot" or "cold."
  
  --
  Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
5. Re:It's not so cold. by danomac · 2012-12-13 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding - I've experienced -52 C (it was closer to -60 C with the wind chill.) That's pretty cold. To think that this is three times colder is unfathomable. But still, -300 F sounds a lot colder than it really is. The only thing I see that still uses the Fahrenheit scale on a daily basis is the stove. Everything else is in Celsius, as it should be.
6. Re:It's not so cold. by DemonGenius · 2012-12-13 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding - I've experienced -52 C (it was closer to -60 C with the wind chill.) That's pretty cold.
  Yes, definitely. At around -50, the batteries in your discman stop delivering a charge and your headphone cables get really stiff. Happened to me walking to work some years ago, it was worth a few laughs with the coworkers, since the cold weather is an inside joke where I'm from.
7. Re:It's not so cold. by tehcyder · 2012-12-14 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding - I've experienced -52 C (it was closer to -60 C with the wind chill.) That's pretty cold.
  Yes, definitely. At around -50, the batteries in your discman stop delivering a charge and your headphone cables get really stiff. Happened to me walking to work some years ago, it was worth a few laughs with the coworkers, since the cold weather is an inside joke where I'm from.
  Do you work at the south pole or something? Seriously, I had no idea that anywhere habitable got down to -50C. And you walk to work?
  I feel like a right wuss now.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
8. Re:It's not so cold. by DemonGenius · 2012-12-14 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  The Simpsons came up with a great phrase for people who visit my city: "We were born here, what's your excuse?". -7 right now though and pretty "warm" for this time of year :P
9. Re:It's not so cold. by LordLimecat · 2012-12-14 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  You cant multiply / divide temperatures in the way youre doing without converting to kelvin first.
  for reference,
  -179C is 94K
  -57C is 216K
  So the first is a little bit under "half the temperature" or "twice as cold".
I'm lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:01 · Score: 0

I'm quite ignorant of organic chemistry, but I thought hydrocarbons were fossils. How can there be hydrocarbons without life?
Or am I WAY off in my ASSumptions?
1. Re:I'm lost by jo_ham · 2012-12-13 06:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm quite ignorant of organic chemistry, but I thought hydrocarbons were fossils. How can there be hydrocarbons without life?
  Or am I WAY off in my ASSumptions?
  There are plenty of organic molecules out in space. All organic means is "contains carbon".
  Organic compounds form anywhere there is carbon, which is made in stars and spread around by supernovae. Given that hydrogen makes up 99.8% of the stuff out there most of the carbon compounds you find in space are simple hydrocarbons, either aliphatic stuff like methane and ethane or aromatics like naphthalene and other poly-aromatic systems.
2. Re:I'm lost by ColdWetDog · 2012-12-13 06:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'm quite ignorant of organic chemistry, but I thought hydrocarbons were fossils. How can there be hydrocarbons without life?
  Or am I WAY off in my ASSumptions?
  Organic chemistry is a misnomer. Most of the hydrocarbon molecules formed in the universe have been created without life. Just a byproduct of carbon, oxygen (mostly as Carbon Monoxide), hydrogen and a few other random chemicals along with a bit of fusion and a lot of time.
  It would still burn OK (if there was any oxygen around). You could still make hydrogen and power fusion reactions (if we knew how). Lots of potential energy in the universe, more than we could ever use. Just hard to get to.
  If you think drilling on the northern end of Siberia is hard, try a Jovian moon. Makes for nice science fiction reading, but as far as it being an instructional video, we have a ways to go.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:I'm lost by MightyMartian · 2012-12-13 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus fucking Christ. Over the last ten years there have been numerous articles all over the place reporting amino acids, sugars, alcohols and other organic compounds even in deep fucking space. Christ, pal, Titan is packed full of hydrocarbons.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:I'm lost by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  But who needs to drill when there are seas of the stuff flowing right on the surface!
5. Re:I'm lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, someone decided to be a douche today ....
  My first statement was that I'm ignorant of the chemistry involved. Then I asked a legitimate question to clear up a misnomer that is NOT that uncommon.
  I can understand reacting harshly to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about trying to sound like an authority on the subject, but I was fucking asking a question. Quit being an arsehole.
Waves by babtras · 2012-12-13 06:01 · Score: 1

Coooool. You can see vague horizontal lines on the sea. Waves perhaps?
1. Re:Waves by babtras · 2012-12-13 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind. Those lines are even more difficult to see over the land but are present. Must just be an artefact of the method used to acquire the image or stitch it together.
2. Re:Waves by JWW · 2012-12-13 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, those are artifacts of the scanning device. A common remote sensing issue.
3. Re:Waves by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously there would be waves in a liquid.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
4. Re:Waves by babtras · 2012-12-13 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why would that be obvious? Waves mean there's something working on that liquid mechanically. Titan is tidally locked, so they wouldn't be tidal waves, and if they were visible in this particular image, then they would need to be very large waves. It would be far from obvious to expect to see waves in such an image.
5. Re:Waves by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Atmospheric heating will cause movement of air which will generate waves of some sort in any body of water. Titan has a slightly eccentric orbit which causes tidal heating and will also cause varying tides in bodies of water. The other moons will cause small tides. Flowing fluid always has waves was the water moves across an uneven surface. This rives flows because it carries fluid from a watershed to a lake.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:How could water be flowing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, instead of reading the article, you decided to search wikipedia instead? That's so messed up....
200 miles or 400 km? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:14 · Score: 0

So, just out of curiosity, does anyone know which it is? (200 miles is about 320 km)
1. Re:200 miles or 400 km? by hakey · 2012-12-13 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Beware of false precision. If the instrument is only precise to 100 km and they measured 400 km, then it would be correct to report 200 miles and not 249 miles.
2. Re:200 miles or 400 km? by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Its a radar image. At that scale I would expect 1% precision or better.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
3. Re:200 miles or 400 km? by hakey · 2012-12-13 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, but even with high resolution images it may be hard to pinpoint the furthest "headwaters" as they may be just a trickle.
Black water rafting by jfdavis668 · 2012-12-13 06:27 · Score: 2

I can start planning my black water rafting trip.
1. Re:Black water rafting by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  I went on a Blackwater rafting trip once. All I remember was the other rafters all had guns and hydrocarbons were involved.
No one blaming BP? by jfdavis668 · 2012-12-13 06:31 · Score: 4, Funny

River of hydrocarbons and no one is blaming BP for the spill?
1. Re:No one blaming BP? by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hold on now! BP isn't getting out of this one that quickly mister! I'm sure they or one of their contractors were involved somehow.
2. Re:No one blaming BP? by drinkypoo · 2012-12-14 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  River of hydrocarbons and no one is blaming BP for the spill?
  No, but they are planning a mission...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
94 Kalvin by wisnoskij · 2012-12-13 06:34 · Score: 1

That is 94 Kalvin, really the only scale that make any sense for numbers this low.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:94 Kalvin by Megane · 2012-12-13 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  ...named after Kalvin Coolidge, because he's so cool he can distill nitrogen out of the atmosphere.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
2. Re:94 Kalvin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, far better than using some crazy units, like say "Kelvin", for example.
3. Re:94 Kalvin by judoguy · 2012-12-13 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  What's that in Hobbs?
  
  --
  Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
4. Re:94 Kalvin by MooseTick · 2012-12-13 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  Are you sure that wasn't Kalvin and Hobbes. That kid can think up some whacky stuff!
  
  --
  Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Re:How could water be flowing by Sentrion · 2012-12-13 06:37 · Score: 2

More combustible fuel than all the Middle East combined! Good thing we didn't elect Romney, or we'd be drafted to fight for the liberation of Titan from whatever God-forsaken lifeform that would allow such a resource to be so underultilized.
Re:How could water be flowing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:39 · Score: 0

Obligatory Malachi Constant reference?
Slashdot.txt by crypticedge · 2012-12-13 06:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Awesome science stuff happens, queue 300 posts of retards bitching about the unit of measurement a writer chose to use so the public he writes to can relate easier.
If you have an issue with the measurement don't bitch and moan, do the conversion and move on. That's what those of us raised on the imperial scales do when we see metric stuff posted (unless we were those fortunate to have grown up learning both)
1. Re:Slashdot.txt by yurtinus · 2012-12-13 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  You don't understand, man! Somebody said something in a way we don't like! We will have blood!!!!
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
2. Re:Slashdot.txt by MightyMartian · 2012-12-13 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I drink your short chain hydrocarbons like a milk shake!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Slashdot.txt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Since we're all basically spectators when it comes to NASA, what else is there to talk about?
  Nasa needs more funding
  HUman spaceflight isn't cost effective
  Blah blah blah.
  The only thing anyone here can talk about in any detail is how to run their PC or be a good sysadmin. Otherwise we're toolish noobs feigning literacy in a topic that's far beyond our education and, for most of us, far beyond our ability.
4. Re:Slashdot.txt by crypticedge · 2012-12-13 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. There are people on here who have worked on ICBM's, there are people here who work at CERN, there are people here who are experts in nuclear physics with regards to power generation. All you can talk about in any detail is how to run your PC or be a good sys admin. There are many diverse forms of the nerd community. I know I cross a few different spots of it, some I can talk about, some that I wont.
  There are many highly intelligent individuals on here though, and I know a few people who work for NASA and Copenhagen suborbitals post here frequently.
5. Re:Slashdot.txt by Phase+Shifter · 2012-12-13 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, some of us are chemists, believe it or not.
  
  And I'm pretty sure Phil Plait would have a bit to say about anything astronomical.
Re: 5% by GrahamJ · 2012-12-13 06:52 · Score: 0

If more than 5% of the world were American that might be a good reason.
Re:How could water be flowing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:57 · Score: 0

I get that no one on Slashdot RTFA, but this time even the description says "200 miles of flowing hydrocarbons."
Sshhhhh!!!! You fool! The frackers don't want anyone else to know we could be sourcing methane from Saturn instead of threatening our water supplies, destabilizing seismically active geological formations and needlessly spewing terrestrial carbon back into the environment from the natural state of sequestration that Mother Nature created for the countless giga-tons organically generated metabolites. Not when we're in the process of commercializing the space travel and asteroid mining technologies that would be perfectly suitable for the task of bringing home all that free flowing, unclaimed wealth and energy that's just laying around waiting to be exploited by the visionary entrepreneurs of a potentially renascent space age! :-)
Could someone translate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:57 · Score: 0

What are miles? What is Fahrenheit?
I don't speak doofus.
94 Kelvin by darkonc · 2012-12-13 07:09 · Score: 1

At some point, you've got to stop complaining and just do the math. (or find a website to do it for you).

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
1. Re:94 Kelvin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  It is what the people at the lab I work at do... they just convert and move on.
  I thought this was a website for nerds anyways. The conversion is easy enough to do in your head. Some people seem way too eager to memorize conversion factors for LoC units but not actually ones that might save them some time in the real world.
My god, it's a fractal! by haaz · 2012-12-13 07:21 · Score: 2

Looking at the image on the NASA page, it jumps out at you: it's a fractal. To quote Marathon 1, "They're eveywhere!"

--
-- haaz.
1. Re:My god, it's a fractal! by jfdavis668 · 2012-12-13 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  My god, it's full of stars!
Okay... Who farted? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:21 · Score: 0

Open a window will yah?
1. Re:Okay... Who farted? by PPH · 2012-12-13 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  So, if the beings on Titan fart oxygen, they could light them.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Re:How could water be flowing by roc97007 · 2012-12-13 07:52 · Score: 1

You missed the word "hydrocarbons" in the summary?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Nice that they added Fahrenheit in parens ;D by angel'o'sphere · 2012-12-13 07:59 · Score: 0

I mean, first of all, a "scientific" article using Fahrenheit, that already is ridiculous.
Then pointing out that -290 degrees is neither Celsius nor Kelvin, my day is saved.
(Absolute zero is at -273 celsius, or 0 Kelvin)

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
As an American by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:02 · Score: 0

Awesome science stuff happens, queue 300 posts of retards bitching about the unit of measurement a writer chose to use so the public he writes to can relate easier.
If you have an issue with the measurement don't bitch and moan, do the conversion and move on. That's what those of us raised on the imperial scales do when we see metric stuff posted (unless we were those fortunate to have grown up learning both)
While I agree that bitching and moaning is unpleasant, as an American I still find it much easier to think about such low temperatures in Kelvin. As all numbers are used to compare to other numbers, it's the only unit of measurement that people use to deal with such low temperatures... unless of course you're one of those rare people who actually use the Rankine scale.
1. Re:As an American by crypticedge · 2012-12-13 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that it would have been preferable to use kelvin, but the point still stands that the submitter was trying to relate to the common reader, so he opted for the imperial scale.
  It wasn't a scientific paper, it wasn't a scientific press release. It wasn't even in TFA. It was strictly in TFS.
Re:How could water be flowing by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-13 08:47 · Score: 1

Or is the river a river of oil?
More like natural gas.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Cue "Moon River" by Mickets · 2012-12-13 09:39 · Score: 1

A 1, a 2, a 1, 2, 3... "Moooonn, riiiiveeer"... that's what comes to my mind.
What a sight by emho24 · 2012-12-13 10:38 · Score: 2

200 miles of flowing hydrocarbons meandering down a valley in the north polar region of Saturn's moon Titan, emptying into the awesomely named Kraken Mare â" itself a body of liquid roughly the size of the Mediterranean Sea back on Earth.

Wouldn't that be a sight. I'd love to watch a high definition video of this river. Imax!

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Cassini Discovers First River On Another World by Hognoxious · 2012-12-14 00:31 · Score: 1

Next week, they'll find it has a shopping cart and most of a bike in it.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
River or inlet by As_I_Please · 2012-12-15 11:55 · Score: 1

How do the NASA scientists know that these pictures are of rivers and not long inlets? In other words, how do they know the hydrocarbons are flowing?