Why NASA Launched Millions of Tiny Copper Wires In Orbit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why NASA Launched Millions of Tiny Copper Wires In Orbit

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @06:57PM from the up-up-and-away dept.

coondoggie writes "Imagine 500 million short copper wires — no longer than the tip of your index finger — floating in space creating what amounts to an antenna belt that could be used to send messages and conduct other space communications research. That would describe the 1960s era Project Space Needles or Project West Ford as it was sometimes called that NASA and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last undertook in 1963 which saw the blasting of millions of those copper hairs into space. NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office this month did a 'Where are they now' look at those copper wires and said that after 50 years, some of them indeed still make up a small amount of orbital debris."

86 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

dup by slew · 2013-10-30 19:06 · Score: 4, Informative

http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/13/2022222/cold-war-plan-tried-to-put-a-copper-ring-around-the-earth
1. Re:dup by worf_mo · 2013-10-30 19:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Today must be Alzheimer's Day, the previous story was a dupe, too.
2. Re:dup by atari2600a · 2013-10-30 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  I almost inadvertently duped your dupe post. True Story Braj.
3. Re:dup by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 19:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Today must be Alzheimer's Day, the previous story was a dupe, too.
  Copper may play key role in Alzheimer's disease
  August 19, 2013|By Melissa Healy
  Copper, including trace amounts in water that passes through copper pipes like these, appears to cause a cascade of events that feeds the progression of Alzheimer's disease, a new study says.
  New research finds that copper in amounts readily found in our drinking water, the foods we eat and the vitamin supplements we take likely plays a key role in initiating and fueling the abnormal protein build-up and brain inflammation that are hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease.
  link:http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/19/science/la-sci-copper-alzheimers-disease-20130819
4. Re:dup by Thanshin · 2013-10-30 19:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Today must be AIzheimer's Day, the previous story was a dupe, too.
5. Re:dup by geogob · 2013-10-30 20:01 · Score: 2
  
  Yes! This post regarding an article published yesterday, citing a NASA report from octobre 2013, most totally be a dup from august 2013.
  If you are so clever, I bet you are clever enough not to read something that doesn't fit your personal interests or something you've already read about, maybe in some other context. But maybe you should read this article and the report cited to see how far this is from a dup.
  But I suggest you skip the Journalistic touch and jump direct to the NASA report. I found it quite interesting - not just the part about the copper needles.
6. Re:dup by wonkey_monkey · 2013-10-30 20:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  French toast please.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
7. Re:dup by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  Did you forget to have your dried frog pills today?
8. Re:dup by gatzke · 2013-10-30 20:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Back in the day, a story wasn't a story until it hit slashdot at least three times, a trupe.
  I still remember seeing a story duped on the front page just a couple of posts between the two, like the "editors" didn't even look at the site.
9. Re:dup by Sockatume · 2013-10-30 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  In my day, dupes happened within hours of the original posting, not months. Boo.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
10. Re:dup by Joce640k · 2013-10-30 21:41 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Back in the day, a story wasn't a story until it hit slashdot at least three times, a trupe.
  Surely it's a "tripe"...
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:dup by broknstrngz · 2013-10-30 22:04 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Earlier today, the OP was heard saying "I know I have Alzheimer's, but hey, at least I don't have Alzheimer's!"
12. Re:dup by nightsky30 · 2013-10-31 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Today must be AIzheimer's Day, the previous story was a dupe, too.
  AIzheimer's Day wasn't last month? Or is it the AIzheimer's?
  http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/10/24/000204/researchers-tout-electricity-storage-tech-that-could-recharge-devices-in-minutes
13. Re:dup by worf_mo · 2013-10-31 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Can't put my finger on it but I've heard that one before!
14. Re:dup by MiniMike · 2013-10-31 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  This will continue until there is a ring of dupes that circles the Earth...
15. Re:dup by DerekLyons · 2013-10-31 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's totally a dupe from August 13 - because the October report contains nothing substantially new. Project West Ford hits the Slashdot front pages about three or four times a year, with nothing new each time.
16. Re:dup by ArcadeMan · 2013-10-31 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Today must be AIzheimer's Day, the previous comment was a dupe, too.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
1963? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 19:16 · Score: 0

But things were so primitive then!
Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-10-30 19:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

The RAF screwed up Nazi radar with "Window", which is the precursor of the NASA Project West Ford:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_(codename)

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
1. Re:Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by maxwell+demon · 2013-10-30 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure he meant the Royal Air Force, not the Rote Armee Fraktion.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
2. Re:Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 21:31 · Score: 0
  
  Oh! My bad.
3. Re:Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by hackertourist · 2013-10-30 23:37 · Score: 2
  
  Except that West Ford was designed to aid communication, not inhibit it.
4. Re:Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by dargaud · 2013-10-31 00:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Just made me waste 2 hours on wikipedia. Proud of yourself ?
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
5. Re:Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by rossdee · 2013-10-31 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  "The RAF came like 20 years after the nazis"
  Actually the RAF was around before the NAZIs
  It was formed in 1918, and Adolf didn't start the National Socialist Party until the 1920s
6. Re:Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by Provocateur · 2013-10-31 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  They called it West Ford since they thought that the original project name Can we just throw crap out the window of a spaceship, was too long, and maybe not easy to classify as Top Secret
  
  --
  WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
7. Re:Look up "Window" from WWII RAF tactics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well Adolph didn't found the Nazi Party, but he was the 55th member.
lenght of index finger tip ... by YoungManKlaus · 2013-10-30 20:24 · Score: 2, Funny

very exact measurement ... NOT!
1. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by crimson+tsunami · 2013-10-30 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  1.8 cm x 0.00178cm
  
  Convert to fractions of a whatever if you so care...
2. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by Sockatume · 2013-10-30 22:10 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it's not meant to be exact, is it? Unless you were planning on building your own device on the basis of a Slashdot summary?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
3. Re: lenght of index finger tip ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  I've been reading the news and i just want to know how many football fields is that?
  Or how many can I put inside a football stadium?
  Failing that, I would like to know if you place them end to end , how many times will it encircle the earth?
4. Re: lenght of index finger tip ... by Thanshin · 2013-10-30 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  I've been reading the news and i just want to know how many football fields is that?
  Or how many can I put inside a football stadium?
  As many as ping pong balls you can fit inside the Library of Congress.
  Failing that, I would like to know if you place them end to end , how many times will it encircle the earth?
  Exactly once. Any more than that and you wouldn't be placing them end to end but parallel to each other.
5. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Why even bother including a meaningless measurement? What comprises the "tip" of a finger, and what is its "length"?
6. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by MiniMike · 2013-10-31 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  very exact measurement ... NOT!
  You're right, how about 1.00 index finger tips?
7. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by isorox · 2013-10-31 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  very exact measurement ... NOT!
  It's 1 microfootballfield, or 1/700th of a London bus.
8. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  very exact measurement ... NOT!
  It's 1 microfootballfield, or 1/700th of a London bus.
  Still not precise enough. Is that a double deck? With or without a fatty riding bumper?
9. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  1.8 cm x 0.00178cm
10. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by YoungManKlaus · 2013-10-31 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  thank you! the first one who does not use retarded comparisons. ANYONE WITH MOD POINTS, UPVOTE THIS!
11. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2013-10-31 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  1.8 cm x 0.00178cm
  Or 8 1/3 GHz and quite narrowband.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
12. Re:lenght of index finger tip ... by Sockatume · 2013-11-01 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Look at your finger. The part between the last knuckle and the end is the tip. The distance between those two points is its length, That gives you an order of magnitude estimate of the size of these particles.
  Do me a favour, never go into engineering. The art of approximation is dying and the last thing we need is people who can't make even ballpark guesses by themselves.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
More junk. by andy_spoo · 2013-10-30 20:30 · Score: 1

So, NASA spends millions every year monitoring debris (more commonly knows as space crap) and are worried that even a flake of paint can damage a space station because of its speed, and they deliberately put debris (crap) into space. Well done NASA.
1. Re:More junk. by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-10-30 20:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, NASA spends millions every year monitoring debris (more commonly knows as space crap) and are worried that even a flake of paint can damage a space station because of its speed, and they deliberately put debris (crap) into space. Well done NASA.
  
  Do what I say not what I do.
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
2. Re:More junk. by tinkerton · 2013-10-30 21:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  and they deliberately put debris (crap) into space
  Past tense. They put the copper in space 50 years ago.There's nothing hypocritical about it. The situation has changed. Attitudes have cahnged
3. Re:More junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  But by all means, let's still rag on the Chinese space program for polluting our orbits. Only we should be able to do that.
4. Re:More junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  We did that. It was a damn bad idea. This is *a* reason we're down on nuke testing (aside from the obvious we don't want 'enemies' to have nukes). We went there, did that, and the Bikini islanders still can't return home.
5. Re:More junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  and they deliberately put debris (crap) into space
  Past tense. They put the copper in space 50 years ago.There's nothing hypocritical about it. The situation has changed. Attitudes have cahnged
  Spelling has cahnged (sic) too!
6. Re:More junk. by Runaway1956 · 2013-10-31 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Have the altitudes changed though?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
7. Re:More junk. by LWATCDR · 2013-10-31 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  That was in 1961.... Back when people tested hydrogen bombs on the surface of the earth, in space, and under water, drove cars that had no real emission controls, and dumped chemicals into the water without restriction. AKA we have learned better since then....
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
8. Re:More junk. by LWATCDR · 2013-10-31 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Do what I say not what I do."
  More like don't make the mistakes I did... This was in 1961.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
9. Re:More junk. by tinkerton · 2013-10-31 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well, most of the copper has deorbited by now.But as the article says, not all.
10. Re:More junk. by rubycodez · 2013-10-31 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  no, we pollute more now, including radioacitve pollution. your rosey view of the world is cute though
11. Re:More junk. by LWATCDR · 2013-10-31 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sources? I would say that you are massively incorrect on that.
  Do you have sources outside of CO2 and of course I am talking about the US and per capita.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
12. Re:More junk. by FrankSchwab · 2013-10-31 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know where you live, but in the US your comment would be simply wrong.
  Having grown up in the LA basin in the 70's, and going back there on a regular basis now, I can safely say that there is significantly less air pollution now than there was then. Open dumping of toxic chemicals in places like the Stringfellow Acid Pits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stringfellow_Acid_Pits) is no longer tolerated. Rivers are no longer used as open cesspools or convenient dumps for industrial chemical processes. Landfills are now designed to catch and remove all leachate.
  I would guess that we release more CO2 these days than we did then, and due to coal-burning perhaps more mercury and radiation (although shutting down atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons certainly helped on the radiation front). But the environmental movements of the 60's and 70's were vastly more successful than your comment gives them credit for.
  If you'd like to see the difference, visit any major US city and note the quantity and kinds of pollution you see. Then go visit any major Chinese city and do the same.
  
  --
  And the worms ate into his brain.
13. Re:More junk. by LurkerXXX · 2013-10-31 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  No we don't. Pollution used to be much worse. The Cuyahoga river hasn't caught fire in decades. Back in the 60's, pollution like that was rampant.
  The EPA was created in 1970 by Richard Nixon, and things have improved much since. Yes, before Reagan, the Republican party actually had pretty thoughtful stances on many topics, hard as that may be to believe.
14. Re:More junk. by khallow · 2013-10-31 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  But by all means, let's still rag on the Chinese space program for polluting our orbits.
  
  Once again, the moral equivalence excuse gets trotted out. Let's note the obvious differences. First, our knowledge of the danger of space debris has advanced considerably in the last 50 years. The Chinese anti-satellite weapon test in question was done only six years ago and, unlike a later US anti-satellite test the next year, was done at an altitude guaranteed to generate a lot of long term orbital debris. They have no excuse for why they endangered everyone else's property in orbit.
  
  Second, it was a test of a military weapon while the NASA experiment wasn't.
  
  Only we should be able to do that.
  Who is "we" here? It's funny how criticism of the US is ok, but criticism of a country that is worse is not.
15. Re:More junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  They have no excuse for why they endangered everyone else's property in orbit.
  Actually they do have at least one reason: economics
  They probably think it's cheaper to pay for damages caused later (if any, endangering isn't the same as actually damaging somebody else's property) instead of paying now (well, 6 years ago) for a safer test.
  Oh, and they have guns. If they can't pay those damages in money, they can pay in threat of violence.
  
  Who is "we" here? It's funny how criticism of the US is ok, but criticism of a country that is worse is not.
  It makes sense if you think about it. Slashdot is a US centric site. So be it praise or criticism, it focuses on the US
  Slashdot is also a site for nerds. Nerds are usually concerned with efficiency and productivity. One nasty habit of efficient and productive people is being self critical, and look at what other people are doing well/better. Identifying those things helps you improve your own efficiency and productivity
16. Re:More junk. by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-10-31 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but we look at the actions of 50 years ago with the attitudes of today. Why do you think modern people dismiss Marilyn Monroe with phrases like "She didn't work out, look at her stomach, nothing but flab there, where are the six-pack abs?"
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
17. Re:More junk. by rubycodez · 2013-10-31 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  was speaking of planet earth as a whole
18. Re:More junk. by rubycodez · 2013-10-31 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  yes the human race does. most the human race does not live in the USA
  the USA is 6.6% of the planet's land mass, and 4.5% of the population.
19. Re:More junk. by rubycodez · 2013-10-31 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  human race as a whole
20. Re:More junk. by tinkerton · 2013-10-31 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because they're trying to fool the competition. It won't help though , she's dead innit.
  Anyway, NASA is also allowed to look at their faraway past with the attitudes of today without being hypocrites.
21. Re:More junk. by LurkerXXX · 2013-10-31 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  And ~20% of the world's energy.
  But I was replying on a U.S. based site, to an article about a U.S. based agency.
22. Re:More junk. by rubycodez · 2013-10-31 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  if we only talk about USA, what happens when we include our share of China's pollution that comes from making the exports to USA?
23. Re:More junk. by khallow · 2013-10-31 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  It makes sense if you think about it. Slashdot is a US centric site. So be it praise or criticism, it focuses on the US
  No. If you were to really think about it, then it wouldn't make sense - as I noted earlier.
  
  Slashdot is also a site for nerds. Nerds are usually concerned with efficiency and productivity. One nasty habit of efficient and productive people is being self critical, and look at what other people are doing well/better. Identifying those things helps you improve your own efficiency and productivity
  Which is what I was doing. You can thank me later.
24. Re:More junk. by mwu · 2013-10-31 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test Debris aside (sorry for the pun), the move by the Chinese was strategically aimed at the US military space program and it basically forestalled the US from any further attempts on the militarisation of space. Quote: "In January 2001, a (US) congressionally mandated space commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld recommended that “the U.S. government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to, and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests." Moreover, the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 has given the United States a free hand to move forward with missile defenses, and space-based missile defenses In response to US weaponisation of space, the Chinese started a space defense program, including anti-satellite defense.[11]" Of course, now there is the X37 program, which the Chinese is countering as well ...
25. Re:More junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-01 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  No. If you were to really think about it, then it wouldn't make sense - as I noted earlier.
  No, if you really REALLY think about it, it makes sense - as I noted earlier.
  
  Which is what I was doing. You can thank me later.
  No you were/are not. You're not being critical of the US, as nerds would do as I noted. You're critical of people being critical of the US.
26. Re:More junk. by khallow · 2013-11-01 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  You're critical of people being critical of the US.
  And I had good reason for doing so. Very misguided criticism just gets in the way of well placed criticism.
27. Re:More junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-01 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  And I had good reason for doing so.
  Why you did it doesn't matter. It doesn't change what you did.
  
  Very misguided criticism just gets in the way of well placed criticism.
  That's not true. It's not a zero sum game. You can always ignore those criticisms.
28. Re:More junk. by khallow · 2013-11-01 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why you did it doesn't matter. It doesn't change what you did.
  Look back at your original post. No indication that criticism of the US is the only sort of criticism that applies. I think this is just another case of shifting goal posts. By the terms of that post, my "why" matters because it fits what you were describing as "criticism".
  
  I was criticizing the original poster because their criticism was just plain wrong, and because because it indicated that they held a deeply erroneous idea in their skull which would (contrary to your assertion about the non-zero sum nature of holding bad ideas) crowd out good ideas. That holds with the ideals of "efficiency and productivity" which you mention in that past post.
DARPA works on reading brains in real time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 20:39 · Score: 0

Pentagon's DARPA works on reading brains in real time
http://rt.com/usa/darpa-pentagon-reading-brain-860/
And you call people paranoid who claim others can read your mind.
Chemical imbalance? Or do we have gov 'monitors' everywhere testing this tech as it develops on a scale similar to or more than COINTELPRO?
The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 20:43 · Score: 0

Isn't it lovely that even in space we still have waste from the 1960's?
In my local neighborhood, all we have left from the 1960's is a landfill, a nuclear waste storage, a couple of concrete monstrosities (and obviously some good music on the radio - it wasn't all bad) and some old people :-). But I am glad to hear that there are some remnants of the 1960's above me too.
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by flyingfsck · 2013-10-30 20:58 · Score: 1

Hey, who is calling me old? You young whipper snappers...

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 21:14 · Score: 1

all those idiots stealing copper will try to go after these.
1. Re:Hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  If it will get us space elevators sooner I say good on them!
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by camperdave · 2013-10-30 23:37 · Score: 1

You Americans! Waste from the 1960's? In Europe, they deal with waste from the 60's, and even the -1960's

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 00:47 · Score: 0

We pollute far more today and in more serious ways at larger and sustainable scales. Diet, genomes, noise, wavelengths, chemicals, nuclear, nano tech; you name it.
i just love the NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 01:29 · Score: 0

http://usefulcontents.com 20 minutes? That’s good! I bet you do that more often. Ha! Jethro loves apples. I know that onions, garlic and avacado aren’t good for dogs. Too bad that avacado’s aren’t good for them because before I knew that I’d give Jethro a sliver of one every once in a while or let him lick my hand after I peeled one. He absolutely loves avacado. But when I found out it wasn’t good for him I stopped giving it to him. Now when I fix guacamole he sits next to me and cries the whole time. Poor boy.
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 02:47 · Score: 0

It's '60s not 60's. The apostrophe in '60s is a contraction for 1960s, the apostrophe in 60's is a grocer's apostrophe and pegs you as someone who isn't very educated.
First Contact by Ukab+the+Great · 2013-10-31 03:03 · Score: 1

Plus it attracted much unwanted attention from the copper-blooded species of the planet Chia 357.
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-31 03:16 · Score: 1

Wrong. It's 60s. He was referring to the years 60-69 CE, which was obvious from the context.. Perhaps further education should also be on your bucket list.
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by TangoMargarine · 2013-10-31 03:19 · Score: 1

No. There is a fringe case for when you're using things that aren't normally 'real' words, ergo this is not really a case of grocer's apostrophe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 03:27 · Score: 0

It appears from his comment that his first language is not English so why would you make such a silly comment.
Just another cover-up by Jmc23 · 2013-10-31 04:32 · Score: 1

Everybody knows it was an attempt to recreate the energy pyramids written about in http://www.amazon.com/Siva-Formerly-Millennium-Lewis-Richmond/dp/0441768369/ in 1955.

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by camperdave · 2013-10-31 05:56 · Score: 1

No. There is a fringe case for when you're using things that aren't normally 'real' words, ergo this is not really a case of grocer's apostrophe:
Actually, this is the scenario here. I debated back and forth on the apostrophe for a while, and decided to go with it for the following reasons: To me, 60s looked too much like 60 seconds, especially in my pre-morning-coffee state. Additionally, I was matching the style used by the parent post (and I notice nobody's jumping on the apostrophe misuse there). Further, I was hoping it would enhance the difference between 60s and '60s. Normally, I would not put it in.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:The 1960's, when you could pollute all you want by TangoMargarine · 2013-10-31 07:22 · Score: 1

I noticed it also displayed internal consistency with your two uses of "1960's" in your post, which is good.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF