No crashes or segfaults from Mozilla nightlies for the last two weeks here. Java is still troublesome, but it always has been, so that really doesn't bother me. As for bug reports,
at least I can report bugs without it costing
me $50 to tell some M$ flunkie that IE's stupid
CSS support still doesn't work right. In otherwords, please take your fud elsewhere.
Actually that article doesn't say anything about
what is wrong with Nader. It does say loads about
what's wrong with the two party system though. The cynicism Savage displays is largely the
reason we are stuck with the problems that we
have. It's cynical to believe that one must
vote for the lesser of two evils. And this same
cynicism is exactly what the R's and D's use to keep everyone in line, by fear mongering, name calling, and let's not forget pandering to anyone that might give their compaign a few bucks.
What's really amusing (though it's hard to tell
if Savage is really being serious or not), is that
he then contemplates moving to Canada to be able
to have a larger choice of candidates! Talk about
being hypocritical....
The reverse is happening as well. As more and
more optics people are becoming more familiar
with adaptive optics, the military has started
declassifying a lot of it, simply because there
are a large number of people in the private/public sector that have the capability to do that kind of stuff. For example, some (if not all) of the
technology developed at the Starfire Optical Range has been released (these were the guys that developed the laser guide star tech).
I also had the luck to be on the team to make
one of the first IR observations using the starfire telescope, it was really amazing stuff.
You might have a look at
encke.
This site has a lot of info about comets in general, including finding charts, positions,
brightness, and lots of pictures spread across
the site.
I've been part of a team working on Comet Tabur
(1996/C Q1) that is believed to have broken up
as well. Our spectra of Tabur show some peculiar
abundances, and it would be interesting to know
if any molecular enhancements or deficiencies
are being observed in LINEAR.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at
concerning binary star formation. I've seen
computer models that do a pretty good job of
forming binary systems. There's still a lot of
open questions, but the spinning cloud model does
look as though it can create close binary systems.
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of how planets might form in a multiple-star system, but to my knowledge, I don't believe any of the recently discovered planets have been in binary systems (with the exception of the binary pulsar planet which was later retracted).
Second, the issue of Jupiter sized planets
near their stars is a bit surprising, but I don't
think it's a big enough surprise to shatter our
formation theories. Gravity is the ultimate factor that determines what gasses can be captured, not the amount of heat that is pumped into it.
For example, what if, in our own solar system,
planets started forming a little later in the
formation process than in these other systems.
That means the sun would have more time to blow
off the gas (and other volatiles) in the inner solar system, leaving only enough material for
the rocky planets. Conversely, in these other solar systems, the planets may have started accreting much earlier in the process allowing them to sweep up more of the lighter elements (and become much more massive in the process) before
their central star grew hot enough to start clearing out the inner solar system. Given the
state of our current understanding, I there's good reason to believe that both these scenarios are possible.
Lastly, I don't think that planets forming out of an accretion disc necessarily requires that
the orbit of the resulting planet have a low eccentricity. We don't know enough about the accretion process to say what the orbit of the
planet will look like...other than the fact
that it does need to orbit in the right direction.
That's not to say that there are no explanations about why the planets in our solar system have nearly circular orbits, but some of
the explanations do depend on the particulars
of our solar system (having a gas giant at 5 AU).
Also, don't forget that we are dealing with
some very big selection effects in these discoveries as well. A Jupiter sized planet at
5 AU is going to be harder to detect because
it simply takes longer for the planet's influence
to be detected, that long orbital period makes
things much more difficult.
doesn't teaching evolution as fact (which many/most schools do) violate the very foundation which this country was founded on? If you have a christian child in your class, you have no right to teach evolution as fact, you have the right to present it as a theory/concept (depending on who you talk to) but certainly not as absilute fact.
No, it does not. By your reasoning, science could not be taught in schools at all. We couldn't teach the big bang theory since Hindu's believe the universe has no beginning or end. We couldn't teach chemistry because other religions believe in only 4 elements. We couldn't teach geology because some American Indians hold the earth as a whole to be sacred and should not be tampered with...and so on. Hell, we probably couldn't teach anything at all in schools, because just about everything we teach is bound to offend someone's religious sensibilities. If you want to keep your children from learning about the world, it's your perogative to take them out of the public school system and teach them what you think is important.
I will also tell you my theory is fact, until you can come up with one that has more predictive power. I don't want to hear your beliefs, I want to see your evidence, if you don't have any, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and God won't back you up either.
Frankly, the kind of argument you give scares the hell out of me. It's precisely this kind of thinking (taken to extremes) that causes all kinds of barbaric acts, simply because what you believe about God is different from what someone else thinks, and you can't deal with it. It's time to grow up. God, if He exists at all, is much bigger and greater than your little religion has ever been able to conceive of, much bigger and greater than I can conceive of, so get a grip and start learning about just how really amazing the universe we live in really is!
My, my...nice argument from authority, but you're going to have to do better than that. I could throw around my degrees too, but I won't. Instead, I will ask you how evolution violates the "basic laws" of physics, biology, and statistics. And if your arguments have anything to do with entropy, or the improbability of "random" molecules coming together, then I will tell you in advance that you're barking up the wrong tree.
And I'd love to hear how evolution is "racist."
PS. From my experience, only the most closed minded people see evolution as an attempt to actively remove God from our world. The existence of God has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of evolutionary theory.
First of all, science is not, nor has it ever been a religion. A lot of the "science is a religion" business is a result of some poor assumptions made by Karl Popper in his explorations of the philosophy of science, which I believe is the root of a lot of these kinds of misconceptions. I think Carl Sagan described science best by stating that "Science is a way of thinking that helps you not to fool yourself." Period. End of story. How you can ascribe this simple concept to a religion, I have no idea, but it sounds as if you are reading a lot more into the scientific method than you should be.
Second, you seem to think that it is somehow possible to extricate the science the philosophical/religious issues. I don't see how you can possibly do that. After all, science has it's roots in philosophy (natural philosophy as it used to be called). And while science may not have all the answers we can ask with regards to the origin of the universe, and the origin of life you're kidding yourself if you think that science has absolutely nothing to say about it either. The facts of science should not be down played at the expense of philosophical or religious issues, but should be incorporated into them. In that way, both fields can blossom and grow, instead of the current situation where science has left philosophy and religion in the proverbial dust.
Over the years, many comets have been observed going through outbursts such as this. What makes this special is the level of detail that's visible.
Comet Halley, for example, had several outbursts during it's last pass through the inner solar system, and later on, it even exhibited an outburst near the orbit of Saturn. It's thought that a "heat pulse" moving through the comet caused a phase transition in the solid CO ice, which in turn caused a small eruption.
Actually, Jupiter can provide quite a bit of coverage, over time. The orbits of comets are not generally going to be in sync with Jupiter's orbit, so it's only a matter of time before a comet (especially a short period comet) has a close call with Jupiter and is either captured or flung out of the solar system.
To be sure, tidal forces are putting the pinch on IO, but they are not strong enough to tear it apart, otherwise it would have been torn apart a long time ago. The "trail of debris" is mostly sodium that has been launched into orbit by IO's volcanos.
YES! During the origin of the solar system, there were comets and asteroids forming through out the solar system. Jupiter with it's large gravitational field, captured or flung out of the solar system most of the comets and asteroids that were nearby during the formation of the solar system.
Current thought is that Jupiter (along with the other gas giants) are responsible for the formation of the Oort cloud, the spherical halo of comets out at the edge of the solar system). All the comets formed much closer to the sun than they are now, but were subsequently ejected into the outer solar system by the giant planets.
If my memory servers me, I believe that the "inner" jovian moons are those with orbits that are interior to the Galilean sattelites (Jupiter's four largest moons).
Actually one of the more interesting things about Jupiter is that it's often in a tug of war with the sun with respect to the outer satellites. It's thought that every so often, Jupiter can capture an asteroid from the asteriod belt, hold it in orbit for a few years, and then a few years later, the sun takes the asteroid back. So it's probably best said that Jupiter does not have a fixed number of satellites.
As for the rate of technological advance, it's basically the rate at which we can build larger telescopes (as well as correct for atmospheric seeing effects). Larger telescopes can see fainter and smaller objects (higher resolution), so the larger the 'scope the better chance of discoving small faint objects in orbit.
But if gravitation in one universe can extend out towards another, there'd be no way for the parallel universes to remain separate--particularly if the forces equated at short distances, the universes would draw together into one.
Not necessarily. There has been some recent speculation that the universe is a 3-brane (a 3 dimensional membrane from string theory's big brother M theory). If the universe is a 3-brane, then there could be an infinite number of other 3-brane universes in the multiverse. And since the 3-branes are "atomic" in nature (they can't merge, but may interact), I don't think there's much chance of other universes drawing together. This may be the origin of the above article, because part of the 3-brane premiss was that all the forces except for gravity were confined to our 3-brane universe, but gravity was not.
Implicit in your comment is the assumption that NT is always the tool that works. This is a false assumption. Sometimes there is more than one tool that can get the same job done equally well, and then it comes down to personal preference and efficiency. MS says that "our way is the only way" regardless of whether or not there may be individuals who may be more efficient working in a non-MS sanctioned fashion. I personally would like to see enough interoperability standards setup so that people can use whatever they like the most and is best tailored to the way they like to work. The idea is to give everyone a choice, not reduce their choices for the sake of dysfunctional comformity.
As for the rest of your comment, it sounds like you're blowing a lot of hot air. You either don't really understand the problem at hand or you just wanted to make a self-serving post. Either way, your name-calling and unsupported arguments don't add much to the discussion.
I'm not aware of any proper motion data for the Andromeda galaxy. It's just too far away to be able to get the non-radial component of the velocity.
I'm with you though. Anyone that claims that M31 is going to collide with the Milky Way is smoking crack. Just because we're moving toward Andromeda does not imply that we will collide with it.
Well, I've actually done a little work in this field, and anyone that predicts that there is a high probability of the solar system being disrupted by *any* extra-galactic collisions hasn't been doing their homework. The density of stars in any given galaxy is such that, there will be (maybe) two, that's two systems might be disrupted.
Even in the highest density regions of our galaxy, near the core, the stars a pretty spread out.
A better interpretation of the interaction is one in which the two galaxies sort of fall through each other, with a new core forming during the process.
I realize and understand this. AND I don't have a problem with it. As I said, the problem lies when AOL et al get so big that they shut out the fringe markets where all the really cool stuff is happening, and since we are a high cost/low margin market, we're the first ones on the chopping block when the mass media want to increase their profits. All that may be left is mass-market media and pure commercialism. Is that what you want? AOL's position is hardly clueless, but it's not one that I'm particularly comfortable with, are you?
If AOL wants to be the king of mass-market media, that's perfectly fine with me, as long as they don't go and buy out every media outlet in existence and then close them down to decrease my choices and increase their profits.
I will also pose another question. You say millions of AOL subscribers may find that AOL offers everything they want, are you really so certain of that? I can tell you that I know a *lot* of AOL users who really dislike the service but are afraid to try something else, simply because of all the time they have invested in learning it and don't want to change (they don't want to change email addy's, etc)...it's the whole worse is better argument all over again, and has absolutely nothing to do with AOL's supposed friendly interface.
As for multiplatform AOL, I'll believe that when I see a Solaris client.;)
I agree with you on every count. Everytime I pick up a newspaper or watch the tv news, I spot obvious errors that anyone applying a little critical thinking to would spot a mile away.
What I don't understand is why this is the case. I always thought that applying a few checks on a story (verifying the credentials of an unknown source) or asking a few questions to try and get a feel for the reliability of the facts involved were things that would be stressed in schools of journalism, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. What I'm even more curious to know is, if these things aren't stressed in journalism courses, just exactly what is?
Actually, maybe I should qualify the above slightly. I've found that the New York Times tends to do a pretty good job. The error rate there tends to be much lower than in other publications. That's not to say that they're perfect, but I've found them to be better about it than all the local rags in Phoenix. Both the newspaper reporters and broadcasters in Phoenix all seem to be total idiots.
is that you are arguing for the lowest common denominator. If that's the market that AOL, Microsoft, ABC, whatever want to go for, that's fine with me. However, these companies have to respect my right to go elsewhere if they don't meet my needs.
Here's where things get sticky though, what happens when these companies going after the LCM buy up everything. I no longer have any choice, I am stuck with whatever these conglomerants choose to give me, and I'm supposed to say "Thank you sir, may I have another!" Sorry, but I'm not going to play that game.
Also, it is with the utmost of arrogance that these big companies try to pigeon hole everyone into their little one-size-fits-all packages. AOL and Microsoft are big offenders here. Who died and made them the arbiters of what is supposed to be friendly and easier to use? I for one will vote that AOL is not friendly nor is it easy to use. In fact, AOL is just a big pain in the neck to use, and they have the absolute worst email client I have ever had the displeasure of having to use in a pinch. And I have similar complaints about MS software. Personally I think the "ease of use/simplicity argument" is pretty weak. It may be simple in some contexts, but certainly not in mine. I feel I have the right to access any available content by whatever means is most efficient for me in the situation I'm in. By forcing me into some canned interface that doesn't suit my needs makes me inefficient and costs me time and money.
Yeah, this is a problem. And to make matters worse, the "press" people in the press release often foul up the content of the release making it out to be something it isn't, either by overstating or understating the significance of the discovery.
I think we are sorely in need of better trained science journalists. It strikes me as very odd that the one profession (journalism) that (arguably) needs to use critical thinking skills more than anywhere else (for the good of public) rarely uses these skills adequately. But then again, critical thinking skills doesn't sell newspapers, but making a controversy out of insignificant minutia can sell millions.
No, Geoff Marcy and his group had been searching for (and perhaps discovering planets) long before this was announced. What made this "discovery" significant was that it was the first time anyone had directly detected a planet optically (or at least thought they did).
All the extrasolar planets discovered to date have been spectroscopic, meaning that the astronomers used the Doppler effect to measure changes in the velocity of the parent star and detect the presence of an unseen body (a planet), by it's influence on the velocity of the star.
Slashdot Mirror
No crashes or segfaults from Mozilla nightlies for the last two weeks here. Java is still troublesome, but it always has been, so that really doesn't bother me. As for bug reports, at least I can report bugs without it costing me $50 to tell some M$ flunkie that IE's stupid CSS support still doesn't work right. In otherwords, please take your fud elsewhere.
Actually that article doesn't say anything about what is wrong with Nader. It does say loads about what's wrong with the two party system though. The cynicism Savage displays is largely the reason we are stuck with the problems that we have. It's cynical to believe that one must vote for the lesser of two evils. And this same cynicism is exactly what the R's and D's use to keep everyone in line, by fear mongering, name calling, and let's not forget pandering to anyone that might give their compaign a few bucks.
What's really amusing (though it's hard to tell if Savage is really being serious or not), is that he then contemplates moving to Canada to be able to have a larger choice of candidates! Talk about being hypocritical....
I also had the luck to be on the team to make one of the first IR observations using the starfire telescope, it was really amazing stuff.
You might have a look at encke. This site has a lot of info about comets in general, including finding charts, positions, brightness, and lots of pictures spread across the site.
I've been part of a team working on Comet Tabur (1996/C Q1) that is believed to have broken up as well. Our spectra of Tabur show some peculiar abundances, and it would be interesting to know if any molecular enhancements or deficiencies are being observed in LINEAR.
Well, you're basically on the right track, but...
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at concerning binary star formation. I've seen computer models that do a pretty good job of forming binary systems. There's still a lot of open questions, but the spinning cloud model does look as though it can create close binary systems. Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of how planets might form in a multiple-star system, but to my knowledge, I don't believe any of the recently discovered planets have been in binary systems (with the exception of the binary pulsar planet which was later retracted).
Second, the issue of Jupiter sized planets near their stars is a bit surprising, but I don't think it's a big enough surprise to shatter our formation theories. Gravity is the ultimate factor that determines what gasses can be captured, not the amount of heat that is pumped into it.
For example, what if, in our own solar system, planets started forming a little later in the formation process than in these other systems. That means the sun would have more time to blow off the gas (and other volatiles) in the inner solar system, leaving only enough material for the rocky planets. Conversely, in these other solar systems, the planets may have started accreting much earlier in the process allowing them to sweep up more of the lighter elements (and become much more massive in the process) before their central star grew hot enough to start clearing out the inner solar system. Given the state of our current understanding, I there's good reason to believe that both these scenarios are possible.
Lastly, I don't think that planets forming out of an accretion disc necessarily requires that the orbit of the resulting planet have a low eccentricity. We don't know enough about the accretion process to say what the orbit of the planet will look like...other than the fact that it does need to orbit in the right direction.
That's not to say that there are no explanations about why the planets in our solar system have nearly circular orbits, but some of the explanations do depend on the particulars of our solar system (having a gas giant at 5 AU).
Also, don't forget that we are dealing with some very big selection effects in these discoveries as well. A Jupiter sized planet at 5 AU is going to be harder to detect because it simply takes longer for the planet's influence to be detected, that long orbital period makes things much more difficult.
No, it does not. By your reasoning, science could not be taught in schools at all. We couldn't teach the big bang theory since Hindu's believe the universe has no beginning or end. We couldn't teach chemistry because other religions believe in only 4 elements. We couldn't teach geology because some American Indians hold the earth as a whole to be sacred and should not be tampered with...and so on. Hell, we probably couldn't teach anything at all in schools, because just about everything we teach is bound to offend someone's religious sensibilities. If you want to keep your children from learning about the world, it's your perogative to take them out of the public school system and teach them what you think is important.
I will also tell you my theory is fact, until you can come up with one that has more predictive power. I don't want to hear your beliefs, I want to see your evidence, if you don't have any, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and God won't back you up either.
Frankly, the kind of argument you give scares the hell out of me. It's precisely this kind of thinking (taken to extremes) that causes all kinds of barbaric acts, simply because what you believe about God is different from what someone else thinks, and you can't deal with it. It's time to grow up. God, if He exists at all, is much bigger and greater than your little religion has ever been able to conceive of, much bigger and greater than I can conceive of, so get a grip and start learning about just how really amazing the universe we live in really is!
My, my...nice argument from authority, but you're going to have to do better than that. I could throw around my degrees too, but I won't. Instead, I will ask you how evolution violates the "basic laws" of physics, biology, and statistics. And if your arguments have anything to do with entropy, or the improbability of "random" molecules coming together, then I will tell you in advance that you're barking up the wrong tree.
And I'd love to hear how evolution is "racist."
PS. From my experience, only the most closed minded people see evolution as an attempt to actively remove God from our world. The existence of God has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of evolutionary theory.
First of all, science is not, nor has it ever been a religion. A lot of the "science is a religion" business is a result of some poor assumptions made by Karl Popper in his explorations of the philosophy of science, which I believe is the root of a lot of these kinds of misconceptions. I think Carl Sagan described science best by stating that "Science is a way of thinking that helps you not to fool yourself." Period. End of story. How you can ascribe this simple concept to a religion, I have no idea, but it sounds as if you are reading a lot more into the scientific method than you should be.
Second, you seem to think that it is somehow possible to extricate the science the philosophical/religious issues. I don't see how you can possibly do that. After all, science has it's roots in philosophy (natural philosophy as it used to be called). And while science may not have all the answers we can ask with regards to the origin of the universe, and the origin of life you're kidding yourself if you think that science has absolutely nothing to say about it either. The facts of science should not be down played at the expense of philosophical or religious issues, but should be incorporated into them. In that way, both fields can blossom and grow, instead of the current situation where science has left philosophy and religion in the proverbial dust.
Comet Halley, for example, had several outbursts during it's last pass through the inner solar system, and later on, it even exhibited an outburst near the orbit of Saturn. It's thought that a "heat pulse" moving through the comet caused a phase transition in the solid CO ice, which in turn caused a small eruption.
Actually, Jupiter can provide quite a bit of coverage, over time. The orbits of comets are not generally going to be in sync with Jupiter's orbit, so it's only a matter of time before a comet (especially a short period comet) has a close call with Jupiter and is either captured or flung out of the solar system.
To be sure, tidal forces are putting the pinch on IO, but they are not strong enough to tear it apart, otherwise it would have been torn apart a long time ago. The "trail of debris" is mostly sodium that has been launched into orbit by IO's volcanos.
Current thought is that Jupiter (along with the other gas giants) are responsible for the formation of the Oort cloud, the spherical halo of comets out at the edge of the solar system). All the comets formed much closer to the sun than they are now, but were subsequently ejected into the outer solar system by the giant planets.
If my memory servers me, I believe that the "inner" jovian moons are those with orbits that are interior to the Galilean sattelites (Jupiter's four largest moons).
Actually one of the more interesting things about Jupiter is that it's often in a tug of war with the sun with respect to the outer satellites. It's thought that every so often, Jupiter can capture an asteroid from the asteriod belt, hold it in orbit for a few years, and then a few years later, the sun takes the asteroid back. So it's probably best said that Jupiter does not have a fixed number of satellites.
As for the rate of technological advance, it's basically the rate at which we can build larger telescopes (as well as correct for atmospheric seeing effects). Larger telescopes can see fainter and smaller objects (higher resolution), so the larger the 'scope the better chance of discoving small faint objects in orbit.
That's the simplified answer, anyway.
if the space shuttle astronauts will get thier pizza for free if they don't get delivery in less than 30 minutes.
But if gravitation in one universe can extend out towards another, there'd be no way for the parallel universes to remain separate--particularly if the forces equated at short distances, the universes would draw together into one.
Not necessarily. There has been some recent speculation that the universe is a 3-brane (a 3 dimensional membrane from string theory's big brother M theory). If the universe is a 3-brane, then there could be an infinite number of other 3-brane universes in the multiverse. And since the 3-branes are "atomic" in nature (they can't merge, but may interact), I don't think there's much chance of other universes drawing together. This may be the origin of the above article, because part of the 3-brane premiss was that all the forces except for gravity were confined to our 3-brane universe, but gravity was not.
Implicit in your comment is the assumption that NT is always the tool that works. This is a false assumption. Sometimes there is more than one tool that can get the same job done equally well, and then it comes down to personal preference and efficiency. MS says that "our way is the only way" regardless of whether or not there may be individuals who may be more efficient working in a non-MS sanctioned fashion. I personally would like to see enough interoperability standards setup so that people can use whatever they like the most and is best tailored to the way they like to work. The idea is to give everyone a choice, not reduce their choices for the sake of dysfunctional comformity.
As for the rest of your comment, it sounds like you're blowing a lot of hot air. You either don't really understand the problem at hand or you just wanted to make a self-serving post. Either way, your name-calling and unsupported arguments don't add much to the discussion.
I'm not aware of any proper motion data for the Andromeda galaxy. It's just too far away to be able to get the non-radial component of the velocity.
I'm with you though. Anyone that claims that M31 is going to collide with the Milky Way is smoking crack. Just because we're moving toward Andromeda does not imply that we will collide with it.
Even in the highest density regions of our galaxy, near the core, the stars a pretty spread out.
A better interpretation of the interaction is one in which the two galaxies sort of fall through each other, with a new core forming during the process.
I realize and understand this. AND I don't have a problem with it. As I said, the problem lies when AOL et al get so big that they shut out the fringe markets where all the really cool stuff is happening, and since we are a high cost/low margin market, we're the first ones on the chopping block when the mass media want to increase their profits. All that may be left is mass-market media and pure commercialism. Is that what you want? AOL's position is hardly clueless, but it's not one that I'm particularly comfortable with, are you?
If AOL wants to be the king of mass-market media, that's perfectly fine with me, as long as they don't go and buy out every media outlet in existence and then close them down to decrease my choices and increase their profits.
I will also pose another question. You say millions of AOL subscribers may find that AOL offers everything they want, are you really so certain of that? I can tell you that I know a *lot* of AOL users who really dislike the service but are afraid to try something else, simply because of all the time they have invested in learning it and don't want to change (they don't want to change email addy's, etc)...it's the whole worse is better argument all over again, and has absolutely nothing to do with AOL's supposed friendly interface.
As for multiplatform AOL, I'll believe that when I see a Solaris client. ;)
I agree with you on every count. Everytime I pick up a newspaper or watch the tv news, I spot obvious errors that anyone applying a little critical thinking to would spot a mile away.
What I don't understand is why this is the case. I always thought that applying a few checks on a story (verifying the credentials of an unknown source) or asking a few questions to try and get a feel for the reliability of the facts involved were things that would be stressed in schools of journalism, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. What I'm even more curious to know is, if these things aren't stressed in journalism courses, just exactly what is?
Actually, maybe I should qualify the above slightly. I've found that the New York Times tends to do a pretty good job. The error rate there tends to be much lower than in other publications. That's not to say that they're perfect, but I've found them to be better about it than all the local rags in Phoenix. Both the newspaper reporters and broadcasters in Phoenix all seem to be total idiots.
is that you are arguing for the lowest common denominator. If that's the market that AOL, Microsoft, ABC, whatever want to go for, that's fine with me. However, these companies have to respect my right to go elsewhere if they don't meet my needs.
Here's where things get sticky though, what happens when these companies going after the LCM buy up everything. I no longer have any choice, I am stuck with whatever these conglomerants choose to give me, and I'm supposed to say "Thank you sir, may I have another!" Sorry, but I'm not going to play that game.
Also, it is with the utmost of arrogance that these big companies try to pigeon hole everyone into their little one-size-fits-all packages. AOL and Microsoft are big offenders here. Who died and made them the arbiters of what is supposed to be friendly and easier to use? I for one will vote that AOL is not friendly nor is it easy to use. In fact, AOL is just a big pain in the neck to use, and they have the absolute worst email client I have ever had the displeasure of having to use in a pinch. And I have similar complaints about MS software. Personally I think the "ease of use/simplicity argument" is pretty weak. It may be simple in some contexts, but certainly not in mine. I feel I have the right to access any available content by whatever means is most efficient for me in the situation I'm in. By forcing me into some canned interface that doesn't suit my needs makes me inefficient and costs me time and money.
Yeah, this is a problem. And to make matters worse, the "press" people in the press release often foul up the content of the release making it out to be something it isn't, either by overstating or understating the significance of the discovery.
I think we are sorely in need of better trained science journalists. It strikes me as very odd that the one profession (journalism) that (arguably) needs to use critical thinking skills more than anywhere else (for the good of public) rarely uses these skills adequately. But then again, critical thinking skills doesn't sell newspapers, but making a controversy out of insignificant minutia can sell millions.
No, Geoff Marcy and his group had been searching for (and perhaps discovering planets) long before this was announced. What made this "discovery" significant was that it was the first time anyone had directly detected a planet optically (or at least thought they did).
All the extrasolar planets discovered to date have been spectroscopic, meaning that the astronomers used the Doppler effect to measure changes in the velocity of the parent star and detect the presence of an unseen body (a planet), by it's influence on the velocity of the star.