Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The 2 factors that could suggest less planets are:
1) The galaxy's central bulge is probably uninhabitable due to radiation from the high density of stars there
2) Stars on the outer reaches of the galaxy are much more sparse than they are here.
The factor that could suggest more planets that are habitable to us is:
3) This doesn't consider the fact that Gliese 581g is on the lower limit of planets we can detect, and it's over *three times* Earth's size! There could easily be smaller planets much closer than 581g, which changes the math considerably.
Then the two factors that could suggest more planets that are habitable to *someone* are:
4) This doesn't take into account that there are at least a couple *moons* in our own outer solar system that are potentially habitable to life (though not habitable to us). If we factor that in alone, assuming we have Earth and 2 habitable moons and assuming the Gliese 581 system has no habitable moons, we come up with double the above number, or *5 BILLION* potentially inhabitable worlds.
5) This calculation is based on the assumption that life requires liquid water. If there are other forms of life out there that we can't imagine which aren't so reliant on water, well that also changes the math considerably. Can anyone else come up with other factors?
(Sorry for the shameless plug; I couldn't resist)
The company I used to work for was one of the very first to start putting pressure on their IT staff, threatening (and carrying out) pay cuts and layoffs, and in a few cases even outright lying to their employees to misrepresent the financial and employment situation.
In response, all the most qualified and experienced of the IT staff left quickly for other pastures (many even left for lower-paying jobs; they just wanted away from the company that had treated them so poorly). They were promptly replaced by poorly-trained staff overseas, and now IT in the company is an absolute disaster. It's now a study in how not to run IT. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing because the people who were instrumental in that communication left and are not coming back. Most of those who are left are super demoralized because of this miscommunication, because they are no longer given the tools they need to make their former level of productivity possible (many of those who developed and managed those tools are gone), and because they now make less than when they were originally hired years before.
It will take the company years to recover anything resembling efficient IT operations even after the recovery because of how poorly they treated their employees.
Let this serve as a warning to other employers: don't treat your IT like dirt (or at the very least don't lie to them), or you too may see your IT come grinding to a near halt.
Am I right?
Okay, I'm not quite that bad, but we all know people who are...
Soon there will only be two corporations: Microsoft-Cisco-Skype-NBC-Pepsi-McDonnalds-Halliburton-Friskies Corp and Apple-AOL-Time-Warner-CBS-CocaCola-BurgerKing-BP-FancyFeast Corp.
Then you'll start getting weird messages on your computer... "You better not buy Fancy Feast." "We saw you drink that Pepsi."
I'm going to go out today and patent clicking a mouse.