http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrynnyVhGkg&fmt=

Here's a cool docu on the absolute zero.

Btw it's 24 days till the premiere of the new Stargate series :D.

Indeed.
But new seasons of Fringe and Dollhouse has me more excited.
I'll certainly give Universe a go, but was never the biggest fan of atlantis, so not sure how good a second spinoff will be.
---

Google to lunch Micropayment system - http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-103...3.html#addcomm

Sounds like a great idea to me.
Newspapers firsts, but I see it leading to TV, Film and all sorts of things.
We arnt worth much in advertising...lets pay instead.
Sooner the internet gets away from being completely advertising supported the better.

Of course though, it does have to be MICRO payments.

http://fora.tv/2009/02/04/Neil_deGra...es#fullprogram

This guy is great (and so is that site btw.)

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat...urse-bear.html

Those crazy japanese! This robot looks like Pedobear!!

http://www.ptgui.com/

A free software for stitching photos! (so if you do a mosaic of mars pics you can stitch them up to a single hi res photo). Well not reallt THAT free, still, I never knew there's software like that...

maybe there's some open source-linux version.

Some interesting links.
Reg Pluto. I always thought the choice between what makes a planet was purely arbitrary anyway. It was pointless to change it just because (for some reason) people didnt want more then 9 planets and if pluto counted, others had too.
Personaly, I wouldnt be supprised if it was a consipiracy by publishers so thousands of text-books had to be updated :P

The only logical non-arbitrary naming scheme I can see is just make "planet" a relative term.
Pluto is a planet to Charon, but its a moon to the sun.
Likewise, if a small rock orbited Charon, Charon would be a planet to that rock.

If you want to make sub-categorise of planets, fine. But you cant have a liner scale, as there is far too many criteria possibly in far too many combinations. You would -always- end up finding an in-between planet, or one with contradictory assignments.
[/random]
===

Anyway,

Interview with a AR company in Japan;

I find it specifically interesting they are getting feedback from the creator of Denno Coil and see it as being possible soon.

http://ascii.jp/elem/000/000/411/411643/01_o_.jpg
http://ascii.jp/elem/000/000/214/214..._c_480x320.jpg


I do see a new market for popup blockers quickly forming :P

There was no definition since the term Planet (meaning wanderer) was first coined by the ancient greeks. Back then there where seven "planets": the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

So after Copernicus, we had six planets, cause he removed the Sun and the Moon, and added the Earth.

Lately the astronomical union created a clear definition of a planet, and that's why Pluto no longer applies. It's devided into three points, 1. It has to be a sphere 2. It has to be the primary object in it's system and 3. it has to have cleared it's orbit around the star. Obviously Pluto checks out with 1 and 2, but does not with 3. Imho it's cool since all the stupid astrologers will be pissed :P

We needed a definition anyway. This way the lanugage conveys more information, because when you say "a planet" you instantly mean all those three points.

Festo does it again!
They've masterred their amazing pneumatic arm.
Combine that with that hand we saw som time ago... and we have an awesome arm!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CayFbmpuyIc&fmt=

Yes, I have read the definition. Which was made by a minority of the astronomical union (5%!) of which the majority didnt get a chance to vote on.
Of course, the majority might well have voted the same way, but its a bit nonrepresentational for those that did get a chance to vote to act like it was a fair vote.

It was constructed specifically to exclude new extra-solar planets found. For some odd reason finding new planets meant they felt the need to redefine what a planet was. It wasnt that they thought a new deffinition of planet was needed, it was that they found a new pluto-like bodys, and didnt want to have more then 9.

And what they came up with still isnt that good anyway.
Plutos orbit cross's with Neptune, surely that means Neptune shouldnt be a planet either? (as it hasnt cleared its orbit)
Earth, Mars, Jupiter all share their orbits with other bodys too.

Where is this line that says "the orbit has been cleared" ? Seems that whatever you pick, the definition is either going to be fuzzy, or arbitrary (say, above/below a certain mass).

Theres still a lot of debate on this issue amongst astronomers, time I classify as utterly wasted, as the definition is not one that effects scientists either way.

Not really. Lots of words are in use without precise bounds set on them.

Historically a planet was a wondering star, a perfectly fine definition, albeit an earth-centric one.
Later it was changed to included stuff predicted...such as pluto...an amazing scientific achievement really, predicting the location an orbit of a body from its parent stars vibration.
So the public...and the scientific community...billions of people worldwide...came to know the 9 planets. These large heavenly bodies orbiting the sun.
And whats wrong with that?
Whats wrong with keeping it as what the public knows, and if a nothing pluto-like body appears, just add it.
Sure, it isnt precise, but whats the harm in just having "planet" as a generic, lay-persons term?

Certainly there is a need for precise classifications, but planet/plutoid/whatever are not precise terms. Not under the old or new systems.
Better to just leave the historic, known, usage of the word "planet" and have categories that can be applied non-linerly.

(eg. Lets assigning things to define properties within certain ranges. Mass, Size, Composition, Position etc.
So planets can be both type A, and B if required, rather then having to be A or B.
Obviously earth has to be M-type..... :P)

Right... the fact is, scientific methodology demands that you have a clear definition if you wish to give names. They found objects that didn't quite fit the popular understanding of a planet (they were small, surrounded by debris etc.). So they coined the definition and it turned out Pluto will no longer fit it. I don't really see some sort of a conspiracy here...

It doesn't mean intersecting orbits, it means similar objects in the same orbit, and if there are many, which one is the significantly primary one. The problem with Pluto is that it's deep in the oort cloud, and if that wasn't enough, there are even bigger objects alongside it.

For now the only flaws I can see in it is that
A:
if we find two or more objects that are significant in size (unlike Ceres for instance) on the same orbit, that fit all of the other categories just fine. If we find that - the definition goes to shit ;)
B:
I think it should be a question of minimal mass, in other solar systems we find, we might find small "plutoids" that will have all the qualities described by the definition, and still be small hunks of rock, albeit spherical, but still hunks of rock.

Yeah, they should just suck it up and follow the definition until we can make a better one... This one however fits the current observations.

Seems you're ignoring precise definitions right now...
First of all, it wasn't about the vibrations of "neighbouring stars", because they're obviously too far away. Unless you mean "Planets"... And it was not about "vibrations" at all, but about the shape of the orbits that demanded a next "planet".

On a side note I'm not certain what's up with you and that whole approach towards language that devoids it of any rules... Of course there should be a lot of variability, it's meant for communication not equations... however there is a a certain extent to which it can work, after which it just becomes miscommunication rather then communication. For instance if you would drop spelling rules in Polish, two words that sounds exactly the like "morze" and "moze" and mean respectively "sea" and "maybe" would mislead the person you're writing to...

The ancient Greek word Planetes just means wonderer - as opposed to the stars, that just "sit" there.

There are larger bodies in the Oort cloud then Pluto, it's not even significantly larger then our own moon...

Well because we were wrong, just like we were when people called Ceres a planet, and like they started calling asteroids in the asteroid belt planets without really knowing what they were.

It's simple for me. It's about proper education. I have been repeatedly asked by people do planets/moons shine with their own light or reflected light... People are not interested about astronomy, and when they do talk about it, most of the times they talk ouf of their ass... We then have such huge gaps like between the public understanding of the word theory (eg. "It's just a theory" as in "nothing certain") and the scientific one that is the name of verified and tested hypothesis (meaning it's just as true as the fact that I'm not a snail).

Oh I prefer having a certain definition that requires some, at least minuscule effort to understand it, then "laymen" running around yelling that the Moon is a Planet. And then think of the Moon (or the Sun...) when talking about planets. I hate stupidity.

That I can agree on, however... When you want to captivate younger people, it's better to also have simpler, yet clearly defined definitions that they can check out, easily understand, and then progressively move to harder ones.

I never saw a problem, and never "wept for Pluto", the further into the Oort cloud, the bigger the mess (that supposedly can extend as far as halfway to the nearest star...), I'm glad the methodological mess is cleaned up at least a bit.

http://www.gigagalaxyzoom.org/B.html

a "galaxy viewer" wow.

http://www.capella-observatory.com/I...rs/NGC6231.htm

This photo is awesome.

If you're interested in those space pictures, this might be something for you. :)

First photo of an "exoplanet" taken!!!

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/i...-web_print.jpg
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/i...-large_web.jpg
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/i...-web_print.jpg

http://www.slate.com/id/2232311/pagenum/all
This article makes a very good point about a fundamental flaw in Google Wave.

jezz i wont go this hospital until i get 20 years old..:eek:

Soft Mobile Morphing Robot

This is just amazing! And it's so easy to make...

The VASIMR engine reaches 200 kW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlknTELEytc&fmt=

The full scale version could take us to Mars in 39 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR

Sorry for my lack of response's, I havnt had much time this past week.

Theres been HHHHHUUUUGGGEEEE amounts of cool science and tech news though.
I'll try to catch up.

The tick box marked "draft" next to every box you type into in Wave is currently disabled, but it will do exactly whats requested and disable people seeing what your typing untill you send it.
Its just temporary thing with the preview, and not a design limitation/fundamental flaw.

As for Wave being too hard/unintuitive, "blah".
If this was a wave conversation, I could have replied by selecting your text and double clicking...youd then have this message written inline, next to your own.
Unlike email and forums which copy the whole previous text each time.

Its not harder, its just a little different.

Anyway, interfaces can change. People can make better ones. The important thing about Wave is its a new protocol with some very interesting possibility's.
Google Client itself really isnt a big deal by itself.

Yes, I saw that its pretty darn cool/disgusting :P
Very usefull idea though...still dont quite get how it moves though...seems too jerky to be purely gravity based.

City recreated in 3d automatically from Flickr Photos;

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...dubrovnik2.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image..._dubrovnik.jpg
http://io9.com/5370575/software-recr...st-photographs

3D Sketchs to becoming simulations;

http://gamesalfresco.com/2009/10/16/...me-3d-reality/

Ive seen this done in 2D before quite well, but this is much neater.
Hope they develop it really far.

Wow, visual recognition has really come far. That's also what AR is all about.

Exoskeleton Now For Rent;

http://gizmodo.com/381024/rent-your-...-price-of-1000

Cyberdyne's HAL suit now for rent apparently.

The really neat thing about this......aside from the fact its a frecking exoskeleton that augments your strength 5 fold....is that it reads the biosignals from your body so it can move exactly in tune with you. (not a split second after).

We are living more and more in the future every day :)

Ooh awesome! An exoskeleton would lower the rates of death by car accidents in lots of percents.

well, the first jobs will be helping people with disability's, as well as disaster/rescue situations. (obviously easier to clear rubble if you got 5 times the strength).
---

Solar Wind Ribbon found;

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...hereribbon.jpg

http://io9.com/5382981/galactic-weat...e-solar-system

Animations;
http://www.swri.org/press/2009/IBEXribbon.htm