Yes, the moon is within the habitable zone, but it's not habitable. If we discover a rocky planet in the habitable zone of another star, the first thing we'll be looking for is an atmosphere (which is quite a bit more difficult than finding the planet, but techniques are being developed and tested). If we discover evidence for an atmosphere, the habitability of that planet jumps into a realm that is much more interesting. Then we start looking for evidence of certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, Nitrogen, etc.).

Well, first, let's go into some history.

A habitable zone around a main sequence star was originally (1959) defined as a (virtual) ring around that star in which at least 10% of the surface of a planet, with an Earth-like atmosphere, in that zone had a mean temperature of between 0 and 30 C with extremes not exceeding -10 and 40 C. This is appropriate for humans to survive.

The zone was quickly expanded to mean wherever liquid water was stable. The term "biostable" was employed to mean where liquid water was stable and the term "habitable" was restricted to mean a place suitable for humans. Soon, though, "habitable" was expanded to replace "biostable" and to include anywhere that liquid water is stable.

All (peer-reviewed) models since the original definition have used one type of atmosphere or another, usually an atmosphere chemically similar to Earth's. Most have also considered planetary albedo (surface brightness), solar evolution (as a star moves along the main sequence, the habitable zone changes or disappears, depending on the details), etc.

Several models have pessimistic estimates to the width and/or lifetime of a habitable zone, most often because an atmosphere like the Earth's is only metastable and it could collapse with only a few % change in solar energy input (distance from or luminosity of the sun, for example can greatly affect the stability of an atmosphere). Other models have included climate stabilization by linking CO2 and surface processes such as the creation/weathering of certain types of rock that remove/add CO2 from/to the atmosphere. There are a lot of these kinds of details that are included in most models of the habitable zone. A lot of the work is in determining which details are more important than others.

For my graduate work, we had to define the habitable zone around the sun, at the beginning of the solar system (4.556 Ga), and now. To do so, we had to start from the proplyd, condense all of the elements at the right distances from the sun, build the planets (we were allowed to assume that they formed in their current positions unless we wanted to make our work more difficult), allow atmospheres to condense or form, depending on where the planets were, etc., and finally determine which planets were possibly in the habitable zone as the sun evolved (Venus, Earth, and Mars, depending on the details and assumptions), and then determine whether the planets that are here now are in the habitable zone, and why or why not.

We, of course, used some pretty simple 1-D models for atmosphere, or used published models and argued why they were valid. We used simple models for planetary albedo, didn't evolve the albedo unless the atmosphere collapsed or changed dramatically in some other way (ignored Earth-like clouds, for example), etc. We used simple estimates for the concentrations of radioactive elements that could contribute to the surface temperature, used a simple model for luminosity evolution, etc., etc., etc.

For these kinds of simple models, the inner edge of the habitable zone is defined by when water will be lost from the atmosphere (through photolysis of the water vapor and escape of the hydrogen) and the outer edge is defined by when CO2 condenses and causes runaway glaciation.

Technically, the Moon is within the habitable zone, but it's obviously not habitable. Neither are Venus or Mars. This is because they don't have the right atmosphere, and may never have had the right conditions.

I make no guarantees to that assertion's applicability other than in the context in which it was originally intended.

The "holy grail" (so to speak) right now is finding evidence for ANY life outside of our planet. Doing so would change our relationship with the universe in many ways (even though most relevant scientists are much less agnostic than they should be when it comes to the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe). Once we find life in one place not on Earth, we'll be much more open to the idea of looking all over for it and for other forms of life than what we're familiar with. So, until that first goal is achieved, we'll look where we think we're most likely to find life.

In my graduate studies, we defined and derived it with and without an atmosphere.

Oh, you're not "very wrong."

We can only recognize life as we already understand it. A common medical exam question is to define life. A common graduate school exam question is to define life. How do we do that? Based on what we know.

We know that life (as-we-know-it) requires a few conditions, so we look for planets that could support those conditions.

Nobody thinks that's the only place to find life, but it's probably the easiest place to find life that we would understand...

They mean its proximity to the sun, the so-called "habitable zone" that everybody wants to talk about, regardless of the type of planet.

I presume you're complaining about the article linked to by Slashdot. That's not a scientific article; that's a popular science article.

Here's NASA's report, which isn't much better. I can't find the actual journal article yet.

www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/rocky_planet.html

The Roche limit is defined as:

d = R ( 2 rhoM/rhom) ^ (1/3).

d is the orbital distance.
R is the primary (star in this case) radius.
rhoM is the primary's density.
rhom is the satellite's density.

If rhom > 2 rhoM, d is inside the radius of the primary.

The star in question is similar to ours, so I'll use our sun's density: 1.4 g/cm^3
The planet's density is 8.8 g/cm^3.

Therefore, the roche limit is within the star's radius and the planet will not be ripped apart.

This presumes a nearly circular orbit, which is good enough for this case.

Yes. Mostly. For this (transit photometry) method.

There are several methods of finding an extrasolar planet.

Briefly:
1) Pulsar variations: If a planet orbits a pulsar, the pulsar's timing will vary in a manner that can be detected by us, and we can use 3-D trig to figure out relevant parameters such as mass and radial distance.
2) Doppler shift of a star's emission lines: If a planet orbits a solar-type star, we can use the star's doppler shift of certain spectra to determine the various parameters of the body (or bodies) orbiting the star.
3) Gravitational microlensing: If two stars align just right to create a microlensing effect, the star further from us will show up as several images or as an Einstein ring, and its brightness will be amplified. If there's a planet orbiting the star that's closer to us, those mirror images or the ring will change with time, and they will be a bit brighter than without the planet.
4) Astrometry (measurements of the variation of a star's position relative to the "plane of the sky"): If there's a massive planet with an eccentric orbit, the star will orbit a barycenter that's outside of its mass, causing the star to move relative to the background.
5) Direct imaging: with certain techniques for processing stellar imagery, we can detect whether or not there's a planet reflecting some of that star's light to us.
6) Transit photometry: observing the star's brightness decrease as the planet eclipses the star. This works best for planets with a perfect orbital alignment with us, but we can still detect and work out minimum values for the relevant parameters.
7) Radio flux: Certain jovian-type planets can emit radio fluxes that differ significantly from most stars. These fluxes can be difficult, though not impossible, to detect from the interstellar noise.

There are more methods...

You CANNOT "see things as they are" with the HiRISE images.

1) Does your monitor display Infrared?
2) Does your monitor display "red" with the same bandpass that the HiRISE detectors are sensitive to?
3) Does your monitor display the bluegreen that HiRISE is sensitive to?
4) Are your eyes sensitive, in the same way as the HiRISE detectors, to the same bandpasses as the HiRISE detectors?

No.

5) It simply isn't "traditional" to show IR or other non-visible wavelength data as a separate grayscale image. Take a look at Hubble images.
6) The difference between photoshopping and processing these images is: a) there's documentation on exactly how it's done, and why, b) the "original--whatever that means" images are available to anyone who actually has an interest in the imagery rather than complaining about scientists.
7) Mars doesn't look dull compared with Earth. The bandpasses were chosen for science. The public images are just that, to excite the public. If you want to do science, then go to the original source. If you want to look at pretty pictures, then look at the pretty pictures.

What, precisely, would you like to see?

Would you like to see the raw numbers that come out of the detectors? Those won't do you much good since you clearly don't know anything about Mars science or remote sensing. Some amount of the "signal" is actually generated by the instrument. In addition, some amount of the "signal" is due to heat generated by the spacecraft, other instruments, etc. If you would like to see the raw data, go here:

http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/

Those raw data are reduced (calibrated) as soon as they hit the ground. Would you like to see those values? Would you like to see a representation of those values on your screen, in the form of an image?

Realize that the images you can view are different because your screen is an 8-bit display and the data acquired through HiRISE are 14-bit compressed to 8-bit, downlinked to Earth, uncompressed to 32-bit, processed in floating point, and recompressed to 10- or 8-bits, depending on the output format. Your screen can't display what was actually detected (raw) by the HiRISE instrument.

Instead of assuming that everyone in the world but yourself is dishonest, try doing a little---very, very, very little---digging and learning instead of trolling.

Here's the main page for the frost-covered gullies shown in the article:
http://www.uahirise.org/PSP_001552_1410

The mosaic of the red bandpass CCDs is here (not map projected, because I'm sure you'd find something to complain about there, too):
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_RED.NOMAP.browse.jpg

The mosaic of the blue-green, IR, and red bandpass CCDs is here:
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_IRB.NOMAP.browse.jpg

The color mosaic, with the stretching to enhance the color differences, is here:
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg

Realize that NONE of the images here show Mars as it would look to your eyes. None.

Also, all of those data are directly available from the front page for the image, including the raw data. So, clearly you didn't bother trying to find what you want to see, you just started bitching because you have some bone to pick with scientists.

Time to feed the troll.

1) These images are not photoshopped (at least not the ones on uahirise.org). If you knew anything about remote sensing, CCD sensors, image processing, or science, you'd know that.
    http://www.uahirise.org/pdf/color-products.pdf

2) Press releases do absolutely nothing for scientists except get their work out to the public. In a "publish or die" world, press releases are absolutely worthless. In a "publish or die" world, peer-reviewed work is publishing.

3) All scientists in a given field (and often across fields) compete with each other for funding, so making claims that are easily refutable (by real scientists, not worthless internet trolls like yourself) means you won't get funding in the future because a) your work is peer reviewed by your competitors, and b) your grant proposals are peer-reviewed by your competitors. If you're a shit scientist, your competitors will point it out to the funding and publishing agencies and your papers won't be published anymore and you won't get any more funding.

4) Do a little research yourself before making such asinine claims about "weasel words" and "without a single theory." Scientists use words like "may" and "could" and "potentially" when they have good reason to believe it's possible, but also good reason NOT to state something with certainty.
      Here, I'll do it for you.
    scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Holden+crater+lake+deposits&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=801&as_sdtp=on
    scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Holden+crater+megabreccia&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=801&as_sdtp=on

Why does /. never link to the original source?

http://www.uahirise.org/

Has anyone bemoaning the new rules actually read them? No, of course not. They read an opinion, with which they already agreed, and then started whining. Typical of the American public, really.

Here, read the summary and then whine.
    http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303745A1.doc (PDF wasn't available.)

More definitions are included in the document above, as well as additional discussion.

Following are key excerpts from the Report and Order adopted by the Commission to preserve the open Internet:
Rule 1: Transparency

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.

Rule 2: No Blocking

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network

Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.

Select Definitions

Broadband Internet access service: A mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence, or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part.

Reasonable network management. A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.

Do you have physics to back you up? No, I didn't think so.

Take a new Toyota Tacoma. Assume weight savings in replacing bumper with foam metal is used elsewhere so you have the same mass vehicle. A Tacoma weighs approximately 4000 pounds, which is approximately 1800 kg.

Kinetic energy is given by:
e=0.5*m*v^2
m = mass
v = velocity (or speed for our purposes).

The kinetic energy of a Tacoma moving at 28 miles per hour is approximately 141 kJ.
The kinetic energy of a Tacoma moving at 5 miles per hour is approximately 4.5 kJ.

That is, the foam bumper only has to absorb 31 times as much energy as the solid bumper to perform to the quoted standard.

See quote below, which is from here: http://www.rexresearch.com/rabiei/rabiei.htm
We see they estimate a factor of 80 improvement of energy absorption over the foam metal's equivalent bulk material. They don't say, but let's assume (reasonably) that they are talking about linear compression. Let's assume for a second that the stock bumper is made of a block of solid steel that doesn't absorb any energy. It's not, and it does, obviously.

If their estimate is correct, and a foam bumper of the same size will absorb 80 times as much energy as its solid counterpart, then the passenger in the 28 mph impact would feel 1-2 kJ of energy instead of ~140 kJ of energy. Obviously the bumpers are not solid metal, and they already have some energy absorption capabilities built into them.

Based on the factor of 31 between the kinetic energies of the vehicle at different speeds, I think their claim is the opposite of bullshit. It's reasonable.

Researchers at NC State have developed, processed, and tested a new high-strength ultra-light material that combines the advantages of metal matrix composites with metallic foams. Dr. Afsaneh Rabiei has produced a new generation of metal foams showing 5 to 6 times greater strength to density ratio and over 7 times higher energy absorption than that of currently available metallic foams. As a result, the energy absorption of these materials is estimated to be over 80 times greater than the bulk material from which the foam is made. Dr. Rabiei was interested in maintaining the advantages of metallic foams (excellent rigidity/ weight ratio, durability, isotropic absorption of energy at low and constant stress) while improving the mechanical properties under cyclic compression loading. The performance advantages of this metal foam are based on improving foam cell structure and reinforcing the cells with a metallic matrix. The resulting novel, closed-cell, metallic foam composite is made from preform hollow metallic spheres and exhibits a strength of over 130 MPa in compression. The densification for the new foam occurs at strains of approximately 50-65%.

Dangit! Missed another point I wanted to make..

When we say we have "proved" something, we generally mean we've shown, to our satisfaction, that the competing hypotheses are not as strong as the hypothesis we have "proven."

So, what these guys are doing is working to show why these possible fossils are not likely to have formed on Earth, are not likely to have formed as precipitates, etc. Eventually, they expect to show that all of the competing hypotheses for the formation are weaker than (or have even been falsified) their hypothesis that they were formed by microbial life on Mars.