But it's cheating when you set your browser to use a 6 pt font.

Ah, Slashdot, where I can pretend I'm still 15 :)

Thought I'd do some checking on this and share with the class:
B612 Foundation

And elsewhere on their site:

The sky is falling, really:

I think this ties in with NASA's, and specifically Administrator Griffin's, emphasis on manned missions over unmanned missions. I hope Obama replaces the man. Because, not having a space mission is a good excuse for the dinosaurs, we can't use that one.

During the leap second, is it considered 2008 and 1/2?

But isn't the value of text messaging over voice calls is that you don't need to interrupt social conversations? I'll wait until the conversation is over before I check my text message. Why is it that people, even younger people (whatever the cut off for that is), feel like they must always act at the behest of their cell phones?

For me, when I send a text message, that implies that you needn't respond to it right away but at your soonest conveniance. I wonder if what you're speaking of isn't so much that they don't consider it impolite to interrupt a conversation to check their text message, but that they consider it a greater offense to not respond to a text message right away. I hope, later on in their lives, they learn to lose this habit quick unless you want to live as a stress ball for the rest of your life. For me, text messages isn't just more conveniant, safer (for driving), but also saves stress because you *don't* have to answer it right away.

And that's the biggest thing about cell phones. With landline phones, it was considered improper to ignore a phone call because it could be something important. But with cell phones, since we carry them everywhere we go, we have to learn to let go and not let it control us.

I think the real news is that the M3 is working and is confirming the results of other moon missions. This isn't so much important for double-checking that there really *is* iron on the moon, but more double-checking that the M3 is working and providing correct information. If the M3 sent back information that the moon's surface was composed of cheese-oxide, they'd probably want to recheck their instruments.

One thing I would like to know is whether this is iron ore that can be processed by a future lunar factory into metal? But the other interesting thing is that it looks like the mission of the M3 is to create a high-resolution mineral map of the moon, which is interesting to me as this would be very useful for possible exploitation of lunar resources in the future.

Anyway, I haven't heard of this mission before (sorry, I've only started to get back interested in astronomy recently) but I'm glad they're doing it.

Here's some links I've found:

NASA's page on the M3
A Space Spin article
Wikipedia on Chandrayaan

Also, from TFA:

Which would be extremely cool if we found uranium on the moon because of the possibility of nuclear energy on the moon. I know, we'll probably only exploit solar at first with the future lunar outpost, but still neat.

(BTW, I'm basically just spilling the thoughts that I'm sure anyone else is having when they read this stuff, I'm sure others will correct whatever mistaken thoughts I have.)

It usually happens after the first time someone tricks them into clicking on a goatse-like link.

My sense is that the culture is very different here in the states, people generally frown on bicycles and there are too many rednecks who will think it will be funny to run someone off the road because they're riding a bicycle. Remember, it's a two lane highway, if someone's in the other lane they can't pass, there isn't much shoulder room. This is enough to put someone in a bad mood.

Yeah, technically a cyclist has the same rights as an automobile, but the reality is different. I won't want to have to sue someone from a wheelchair, even if I win the lawsuit.

I wish I could ride a bicycle to where I need to go, but between where I live and town is about five miles of 55+mph traffic without passing lanes. Check out Google Maps sometime, our road system isn't made for bikes.

Sorry, dude? That's just gross. Some of us browse slashdot at work you know!

You mean an orbit where the sun is always in view? Is that possible? It just seems that such an orbit would be way too slow and would fall into the atmosphere, as wouldn't it need to orbit the earth once per solar year?

Additionally, I don't know if a geostationary orbit is required or not, so that the energy beam doesn't need to move.

Another industry gonna show up in the bailout line for some soup? Think of the jobs!

But doesn't this depend on the orbit? More exactly, doesn't this depend on the distance the orbit is from the earth? The higher your orbit, the less time you have in the earth's shadow. Consider the moon's orbit, which is much higher than we need, but consider how often the moon falls into the earth's shadow. When was the last lunar eclipse you've seen?

I'm just wondering where the finish line is to this sort of thought process. We don't have a full understanding of the human genome, you say, so when, and by what means, do you think that is going to be accomplished? Or what if we never have a full understanding of the human genome, which is what I think most people who say this sort of thing suspect. But, even with technology that we have totally mastered, like electricity, superconductors, or baking bread, in no case can we say we have a full understanding.

And all of this distracts from the reality that even if no amount of genetic material is removed or replaced, you're still going to have unexpected results. "Nature", as it happens, is full of suprises and some really awful jokes; and we make do. It just surprises me that when we make real progress at being able to control nature, someone pops up thinking that because we don't have godly omniscience that we're just going to make things worse. As if the only thing that human beings and our technology can do is make things worse. It's a very old prejudice, but one that can no longer leave unchallenged.