After "Can you see the rings around uranus", "Can you look at the neighbours?" is the oldest and lamest joke astronomers need to put up with. Come on guys, try something better! Ask us where the Eludium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator goes!
-aiabx
Actually, one of the mission objectives on Apollo 12 was bringing back pieces of the old Surveyor 3 lander, in order to see how materials reacted to years of exposure to cosmic rays/vacuum/temperature extremes, and also as a source of data on cosmic rays outside the earth's magnetosphere. That's real science.
-aiabx
You need more responsiveness on Mars. If you send a bad command to Voyager, you have weeks before a crash will occur to correct the error. On Mars, the Rover can roll and fall sideways off the ramp before you can say "oops".
-aiabx
Re:Preference for "geek" over "nerd"
on
We Are All Nerds Now
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Everyone has their own definition of geek and nerd, but the one of I've always worked by is based on self-conciousness. People who care about the lifestyle, and say things like "I'm a geek, dammit" probably are. My friend who writes compilers (Yes, you Tom!) and has no idea just how weird he is because he is totally unselfconcious about it is a nerd. My nerd friends are the ones I respect more.
-aiabx
The problem with English is that the word proud has two meanings; to be proud of one's accomplishments, and to be not ashamed. When I say I am proud of having spotted the variable star SS Cygni in outburst, I do not mean it in the same sense as being proud of being a geek/nerd/whatever. One is an accomplishment that I worked hard at, the other is just a lack of shame over being what I am.
-aiabx
Except we have evidence in the form of accident statistics that tell us these people are good at the jobs, and that commercial flight is relatively safe.
-aiabx
There are more people in California or New York than there are in Canada, so I'm not surprised that they have more MRI machines. What I do know is that my wife received cutting-edge treatment for a life-threatening illness two years ago, and we still own our house, so I'm glad I live in Canada.
-aiabx
When you take a telescope with a price that low, and subtract the cost of the electronics, you aren't leaving much to spend on quality optics. So you get a crappy view. Better to save your money for a 6" dobsonian reflector, or a good pair of binoculars. Or be prepared to spend a lot more money for a good computer-guided telescope.
-aiabx
Free Software isn't about revenge, or cheap stuff. It's about freedom. If every MS product were free tomorrow, there would still be a free software movement, as long as one person wants to be able to see and modify the source.
You can add the word "just" after the "isn't" in the first sentence, if you wish.
-aiabx
Anyone who has ever done any serious coding knows that sometime you just need that quick and dirty solution. I'd rather fly on Rutan's machine, but Carmack may still get up there quicker.
-aiabx
Here is a cool telescope. You set it on the ground, GPS signals tell it where and when it is, and you type whatever you want to see into the handset. Then the telescope finds it for you.
Celestron (and others) make similar models, but I like Meade.
-aiabx
Same argument applies. Unless you assume that the human race was created by a supernatural act, you can conclude that the human race is the product of natural processes. If they occurred on earth, they can occur on any suitable planet where the same laws of physics apply, which, as far as we can tell, is anywhere in the observable universe. Your argument about coincidences is true to a point, but you have to consider serveral points: 1) none of these configurations are hard and fast. If the earth were at 94 million miles out instead of 93 million, life would probably be much the same. If the sun were half as bright, and the earth at 25 million miles, life would be much the same. If there were a second Jupiter at the orbit of Mercury, life would be much the same. Of the hundred or so solar systems yet discovered, all we can safely conclude is that most of them have giant planets in close orbits. We can't conclude anything about earthlike planets, or giant planets in distant orbits. We do know that planets are common, though. 2) We also know that we have a staggering number of stars to work with. The last estimate I read was that there were ~ 10 billion stars in the MIlky Way, and on the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars! Since we know planets are relatively common, what kind of odds do we want to assign to the possibility of another earthlike planet around another sun? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1 million? How about an outrageous 1 in a trillion? That leaves around a billion earthlike planets in the observable universe. Not to mention the possibility of non-water based life. With the same natural forces working on all those other planets, what are the odds of life evolving somewhere else? I think they're pretty high, especially since we know it has happened at least once. Carl Sagan thought so too.
-aiabx
Wrong. Try again. We have convincing evidence that life evolved on at least one planet. And if it happened here, and you accept the premise that it happened without divine intervention, then it could happen elsewhere as well. Thanks for trolling!
-aiabx
As someone has pointed out here, more than gravity may be involved. What I am wondering is how you can manage reliable predictions when you aren't in full possession of the facts. First of all: Do the planets influence us in proportion to the square of their distance, or is the influence the same for all planets? If it's at the square of the distance, like all other natural forces, do astrologers take the varying distances into account? Do they account for the fact that the asteroid Vesta will have a greater "planetary" influence than Pluto? Or is there a magical quantity of "planetness" that excludes asteroids? If the planetary effect is unaffected by distance or size, were accurate horoscopes possible before the discovery of Pluto? What happens if the IAU revokes Pluto's planetary status? Why does Pluto qualify and not Quaoar, Ixion or Varuna? Until I hear convincing answers to these and the many other similar questions I have, I will regard astrology as rank superstition and anyone who follows it as a credulous sap.
-aiabx
Not a bad idea if we assume that all people develop at the same rate in their early childhood. I can assure you as a parent that this is not the case. Furthermore, it does not explain how someone born on the 20th of December will be fundamentally different from someone born on the 22nd of December.
-aiabx
>Of course Mars smacking with the Earth is hard to >imagine but what if something were to collide with >Mars while it is so close to the Earth? Isn't it >possible that something colliding with Mars large >enough could send fragments of Mars close to Earth?
This happens. That's why we are able to find Martian meteorites in Antarctica which hint at the possibility of life. A large enough meterorite hitting Mars will knock pieces loose with enough energy to escape Martian gravity. Once this is done, it's easy for them to float through space until the earth sweeps them up.
Who I am as a person doesn't depend on the functionality of my legs. I don't see these as fundamentally different from glasses. It's just another tool to allow myself to function and contribute even though my body doesn't work as well as it could. I have no problem with aging - I'm not dying my hair or massaging my skin with wrinkle removing cream - but I see no reason to go and lie on an ice floe when I can use a tool to extend my useful life.
-aiabx
Slashdot Mirror
Quite right! Why do something when someone else can do it and you can sit on your fat ass and watch?
-aiabx
After "Can you see the rings around uranus", "Can you look at the neighbours?" is the oldest and lamest joke astronomers need to put up with. Come on guys, try something better! Ask us where the Eludium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator goes!
-aiabx
I'm waiting for Frodo vs Predator.
-aiabx
Actually, one of the mission objectives on Apollo 12 was bringing back pieces of the old Surveyor 3 lander, in order to see how materials reacted to years of exposure to cosmic rays/vacuum/temperature extremes, and also as a source of data on cosmic rays outside the earth's magnetosphere. That's real science.
-aiabx
You need more responsiveness on Mars. If you send a bad command to Voyager, you have weeks before a crash will occur to correct the error. On Mars, the Rover can roll and fall sideways off the ramp before you can say "oops".
-aiabx
Everyone has their own definition of geek and nerd, but the one of I've always worked by is based on self-conciousness. People who care about the lifestyle, and say things like "I'm a geek, dammit" probably are. My friend who writes compilers (Yes, you Tom!) and has no idea just how weird he is because he is totally unselfconcious about it is a nerd. My nerd friends are the ones I respect more.
-aiabx
The problem with English is that the word proud has two meanings; to be proud of one's accomplishments, and to be not ashamed. When I say I am proud of having spotted the variable star SS Cygni in outburst, I do not mean it in the same sense as being proud of being a geek/nerd/whatever. One is an accomplishment that I worked hard at, the other is just a lack of shame over being what I am.
-aiabx
Except we have evidence in the form of accident statistics that tell us these people are good at the jobs, and that commercial flight is relatively safe.
-aiabx
probably just as old...
Why do nerds confuse Halloween and Christmas?
Because OCT31=DEC25
I feel ashamed.
-aiabx
There are more people in California or New York than there are in Canada, so I'm not surprised that they have more MRI machines. What I do know is that my wife received cutting-edge treatment for a life-threatening illness two years ago, and we still own our house, so I'm glad I live in Canada.
-aiabx
When you take a telescope with a price that low, and subtract the cost of the electronics, you aren't leaving much to spend on quality optics. So you get a crappy view. Better to save your money for a 6" dobsonian reflector, or a good pair of binoculars. Or be prepared to spend a lot more money for a good computer-guided telescope.
-aiabx
I thought it was Qan't Ergue with Dat.
-aiabx
Free Software isn't about revenge, or cheap stuff. It's about freedom. If every MS product were free tomorrow, there would still be a free software movement, as long as one person wants to be able to see and modify the source.
You can add the word "just" after the "isn't" in the first sentence, if you wish.
-aiabx
Anyone who has ever done any serious coding knows that sometime you just need that quick and dirty solution. I'd rather fly on Rutan's machine, but Carmack may still get up there quicker.
-aiabx
Here is a cool telescope. You set it on the ground, GPS signals tell it where and when it is, and you type whatever you want to see into the handset. Then the telescope finds it for you.
Celestron (and others) make similar models, but I like Meade.
-aiabx
That was the only verified instance of a creature killed by a falling meteor. Numbers of people have been injured.
-aiabx
Same argument applies. Unless you assume that the human race was created by a supernatural act, you can conclude that the human race is the product of natural processes. If they occurred on earth, they can occur on any suitable planet where the same laws of physics apply, which, as far as we can tell, is anywhere in the observable universe.
Your argument about coincidences is true to a point, but you have to consider serveral points:
1) none of these configurations are hard and fast. If the earth were at 94 million miles out instead of 93 million, life would probably be much the same. If the sun were half as bright, and the earth at 25 million miles, life would be much the same. If there were a second Jupiter at the orbit of Mercury, life would be much the same. Of the hundred or so solar systems yet discovered, all we can safely conclude is that most of them have giant planets in close orbits. We can't conclude anything about earthlike planets, or giant planets in distant orbits. We do know that planets are common, though.
2) We also know that we have a staggering number of stars to work with. The last estimate I read was that there were ~ 10 billion stars in the MIlky Way, and on the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars! Since we know planets are relatively common, what kind of odds do we want to assign to the possibility of another earthlike planet around another sun? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1 million? How about an outrageous 1 in a trillion? That leaves around a billion earthlike planets in the observable universe. Not to mention the possibility of non-water based life. With the same natural forces working on all those other planets, what are the odds of life evolving somewhere else? I think they're pretty high, especially since we know it has happened at least once. Carl Sagan thought so too.
-aiabx
Wrong. Try again. We have convincing evidence that life evolved on at least one planet. And if it happened here, and you accept the premise that it happened without divine intervention, then it could happen elsewhere as well.
Thanks for trolling!
-aiabx
As someone has pointed out here, more than gravity may be involved. What I am wondering is how you can manage reliable predictions when you aren't in full possession of the facts.
First of all: Do the planets influence us in proportion to the square of their distance, or is the influence the same for all planets? If it's at the square of the distance, like all other natural forces, do astrologers take the varying distances into account? Do they account for the fact that the asteroid Vesta will have a greater "planetary" influence than Pluto? Or is there a magical quantity of "planetness" that excludes asteroids?
If the planetary effect is unaffected by distance or size, were accurate horoscopes possible before the discovery of Pluto? What happens if the IAU revokes Pluto's planetary status? Why does Pluto qualify and not Quaoar, Ixion or Varuna? Until I hear convincing answers to these and the many other similar questions I have, I will regard astrology as rank superstition and anyone who follows it as a credulous sap.
-aiabx
Not a bad idea if we assume that all people develop at the same rate in their early childhood. I can assure you as a parent that this is not the case. Furthermore, it does not explain how someone born on the 20th of December will be fundamentally different from someone born on the 22nd of December.
-aiabx
There was an election in 2000, but Bush still got the job.
-aiabx
Then don't listen to the radio. We aren't talking about food and water here. Crappy radio stations are a luxury we can live without.
-aiabx
What makes you think that those 40-year-olds with 15 years experience aren't slashdotters?
I am.
-aiabx
>Of course Mars smacking with the Earth is hard to >imagine but what if something were to collide with >Mars while it is so close to the Earth? Isn't it >possible that something colliding with Mars large >enough could send fragments of Mars close to Earth?
This happens. That's why we are able to find Martian meteorites in Antarctica which hint at the possibility of life. A large enough meterorite hitting Mars will knock pieces loose with enough energy to escape Martian gravity. Once this is done, it's easy for them to float through space until the earth sweeps them up.
And it doesn't destroy the earth, either!
-aiabx
Who I am as a person doesn't depend on the functionality of my legs. I don't see these as fundamentally different from glasses. It's just another tool to allow myself to function and contribute even though my body doesn't work as well as it could. I have no problem with aging - I'm not dying my hair or massaging my skin with wrinkle removing cream - but I see no reason to go and lie on an ice floe when I can use a tool to extend my useful life.
-aiabx