Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Australia Is On So Much Fire, You Can See It From Orbit

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the only-you-can-prevent-burning-australia-to-cinders dept.

Australia 289

Jeremy Lee writes "Temperatures in Australia this week hit the point where the Bureau of Meteorology had to invent a new color. And with heat and winds come Bushfires. So it's probably good that I made a real-time bushfire map with every known source of public data directly relating to fires in Australia, mostly because fire doesn't respect state borders." From space.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532179)

I've been looking for a full country version. This is awesome. Thanks.

BBQ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532187)

Kangaroo BBQ? anyone?

Re:BBQ (1)

mush1se (1214386) | about 2 years ago | (#42532277)

Sure what kind of BBQ sauce do you want me to bring?

Re:BBQ (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532507)

Something with a little kick to it.

Re:BBQ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532855)

And hop to it!

The smell, the horrible smell (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#42532197)

Once you've smelled burning kangaroo mixed with the acrid stench of melted dune-buggy and dead mutant, you're never the same again. I can still hear the koalas screaming in my nightmares.

Re:The smell, the horrible smell (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#42532341)

Walk away. Just walk away. And live.

Re:The smell, the horrible smell (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 2 years ago | (#42532463)

Better install Verb Alert [youtube.com] before it reaches your house, Bruce.

Re:The smell, the horrible smell (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532753)

Let me be the first to say F UCK you and your VerbAlert.

English Nazi

Re:The smell, the horrible smell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532837)

Get over yourself. Watch Kinetic Typography http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Re:The smell, the horrible smell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533061)

Once you've smelled burning kangaroo mixed with the acrid stench of melted dune-buggy and dead mutant, you're never the same again. I can still hear the koalas screaming in my nightmares.

The worst part is the spiders. The horrible, horrible Australian spiders. You'd think the fire would finally rid us of the deadly, venomous pests, right? But then you hear their terrible hissing voices in every fire, all of them speaking in unison, repeating the first and only thing they have ever said, in a crude parody of human speech, "This can't stop us... you can't stop us... we will return... this can't stop us..."

Demise of the English langauge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532203)

We're now using and at the start of sentences?

Re:Demise of the English langauge (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#42532287)

Yes, because English teachers are the only ones against it. Everyone else understands that it's acceptable when used properly.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532365)

And I don't think there is a proper use.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532531)

You may need to move in better circles, its not 'used properly' at the start of the sentence. Everyone understands that 'and' is a conjunction. If you let simple things like this slide you'll end up with statesmen who can't spell potato, and no one wants to go there.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (3, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42532683)

You seem to not understand the idea of colloquial grammar. "And" at the beginning of a sentence can communicate information that isn't necessarily directly dependent on the previous independent clause. It can, for example, represent the notion of building on a previous assertion in the same paragraph. And that is why colloquial grammar should be understood, and not edited for no better reason than "I say so".

Re:Demise of the English langauge (4, Informative)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 2 years ago | (#42532699)

Oxford disagrees (about conjunctions, but you are spot on about potatoes): http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/conjunctions [oxforddictionaries.com] It is fine to start a sentence with and.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 2 years ago | (#42532871)

-1 for missing the apostrophe in the contraction for "it is" while engaging in Grammar Natzism.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533055)

-1 for misspelling Nazism. It's Nazis all the way down.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533099)

Says the guy who writes "its not 'used properly'". I think you mean it's. That's the problem with correcting people, throwing stones etc.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#42532577)

But it's not technically allowed. But everyone does it.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#42532933)

As a brilliant British writer once said, "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."

Re:Demise of the English langauge (3, Interesting)

cheaphomemadeacid (881971) | about 2 years ago | (#42532439)

Actually, this summary is pretty good. its concise, its not repeatin half the article its linking to. I'd prefer more summaries like this.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (5, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#42532461)

Greetings, time traveler from the 19th century. "And" has been an acceptable opening segue for some time now here in 2012. Also, we attempt to use gender-neutral language, which has made using the plural "they" and its variants as singular forms increasingly acceptable. In addition, the delineation between "effect" and "affect" seems to be fading in popular usage as well, as have traditional meanings of "irony" and "hacker" (a word which probably means something REALLY different to you).

Oh, and we have a cure or treatment for every venereal disease now! And we have a polio vaccine too!

Re:Demise of the English langauge (3, Funny)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#42532653)

Greetings, time traveler from the early 21st century. It's only 2013 now, maybe you should have gone for a longer journey than coming from 2012.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532705)

And it was really amazing! I went to sleep in 2012 and I woke up in 2013!

Re:Demise of the English langauge (4, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 2 years ago | (#42532769)

That's nothing. I slept through the end of the world a few weeks ago.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#42533151)

That's a quiet life.

Everyone I know was awake for the rollover from 2012 to 2013. Most were consuming some sort of alcohol too.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532929)

"And" has been an acceptable opening segue for some time now here in 2012. Also, we attempt to use gender-neutral language, which has made using the plural "they" and its variants as singular forms increasingly acceptable. In addition, the delineation between "effect" and "affect" seems to be fading in popular usage as well, as have traditional meanings of "irony" and "hacker"

What those usages all have in common is that those who are skilled at using the English language don't use them.

Clearly, we must always accommodate the most ignorant and unskilled (at their single native language!) among us. That will definitely raise the bar. In fact, let's do the same thing for cars. Someone might accidentally press the brake pedal when they intended to use the accelerator. That might make them feel bad. So let's make cars where both the brake and gas pedals accelerate the vehicle. It'll be great! Then the driver is never, ever told they did something wrong. We'll just keep moving the goalposts so that no one is ever mistaken.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 2 years ago | (#42533009)

You will not get me to use the plural pronouns to make gender neutral references. There are perfectly acceptable made-up words for gender neutral pronouns. If we're going to abandon traditional English, we might as well do it with new words rather than abuse the accepted meaning of existing ones.

Mr. Gordon Sumner may feel free to die in one of the aforementioned brush files. If I love someone, I will set her free. Or perhaps hir if I'm feeling especially androgynous at the time.

AND, there are FOUR lights!

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533177)

Oh, and we have a cure or treatment for every venereal disease now!

Including pregnancy?

Re:Demise of the English langauge (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533241)

"between "effect" and "affect" seems to be fading in popular usage as well"

No more than "then" and "than", "there/they're/their", or various other commonly confused words with different meanings. No, they aren't "fading in popular usage". They're just more confused than ever because more people tolerate sloppy writing. They are still distinct, and the need for them to remain distinct has not vanished. (Example: "It is better to be pissed off then pissed on" -- "Uh, I think you meant 'than'")

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

telchine (719345) | about 2 years ago | (#42532557)

We're now using and at the start of sentences?

and why not?

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | about 2 years ago | (#42532571)

yes. but it's ok.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#42532633)

Here, allow me to blow your mind:

"And" at the start of a sentence is not acceptable.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532865)

Acceptable to who?

Some pedantic grammar nuts nobody gives a fuck about?

Ok. I shall continue to not give a fuck it upsets some people. AND the rest of the world will continue to communicate just fine.

Stuck on rules just because they are rules.. Is a sign of mental illness. You should get that checked before you shoot up a school or something.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#42533053)

Aaaaaandddd Whooosh!

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533077)

"Acceptable to whom?"

Re:Demise of the English langauge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533111)

Acceptable to whom?

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

dfeifer (973821) | about 2 years ago | (#42532917)

Looks to me, as short as the second half is, like it was a typo and should have been a coma instead of a period. I would give the person some slack. Depending on how small the screen was that the entered the comment in you may not be able to tell the difference between a comma and a period.

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#42533039)

Is saying "We are" when writing a question another symptom of the demise of the English language?

Re:Demise of the English langauge (1)

glsunder (241984) | about 2 years ago | (#42533247)

And you have a problem with this?

My god ... (2)

0racle (667029) | about 2 years ago | (#42532219)

they've gone to plaid.

Re:My god ... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#42532949)

So you're saying Australia has been invaded by Scotsmen?

Re:My god ... (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#42533311)

If they have been, I bet they weren't True Scotsmen!

I blame global cooling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532227)

The new ice age will soon be upon us.

Re:I blame global cooling (3, Informative)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#42532289)

Is this a drive-by post by a moron?

Re:I blame global cooling (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#42532321)

To be fair, the new colors would fit best in the scale in the range well below freezing.

Re:I blame global cooling (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#42532589)

I thought so too but then at 55 degrees north I probably see temperature gradient maps of sub-zero temperatures more often than an Australian does.

Re:I blame global cooling (1)

ssam (2723487) | about 2 years ago | (#42532625)

think of them as negative kelvin (i.e. hotter than normal temperatures).

Re:I blame global cooling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532419)

haven't you heard?

we have never had brush fires until the last few years

Invent? (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#42532241)

Invent a new colour?

Is this some new mix of visible wavelengths that had never been encountered before?

Seems to me they just used an existing colour that had not previously been used on the temperature gradient maps.

Re:Invent? (4, Funny)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#42532255)

They had to invent a new colour, Australia wasn't visible from space before

Re:Invent? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532323)

Octarine? That could explain its invisibility from space, I suppose.

Re:Invent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532273)

They would of assumed it was a new color but they'll be shocked to find that Apple owns the patent!

Re:Invent? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#42532309)

They even had to hire a Colo(u)r Invention Specialist. The CIS's job is to mix and match wavelengths in crazy new ways. In lieu of payment, he has been given an unlimited supply of hallucinogenic narcotics.

Purple Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532257)

I suggest that we go to... Purple Alert.

Re:Purple Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533085)

Are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb.

Numbers from the article... (0)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 2 years ago | (#42532291)

I'm sure the Global warmers/deniers will be all over the place. Either way, the article for those who didn't read it have the following stats:

Hottest national averages on record (before today).

1 January 7, 2013: 40.33 degrees
2 December 21, 1972: 40.17
3 December 20, 1972: 40.01
4 December 22, 1972: 39.82
5 January 1, 1973: 39.79
6 January 6, 2013: 39.71
7 December 17, 2002: 39.7
8 January 2, 1973: 39.65
9 January 3, 2013: 39.55
10 December 16, 2002: 39.54
11 December 30, 1972: 39.48
12 December 31, 1972: 39.43
13 January 27, 1936: 39.4
14 January 1, 1990: 39.39
15 January 4, 2013: 39.32
16 January 5, 2013: 39.26
17 January 2, 1990: 39.22
18 January 2, 2013: 39.21
19 December 18, 2002: 39.2
20 January 13, 1985: 38.98

So it would appear that 1972 and even 1973 were very hot years there. As well as it appears that 2013 will be as well. Finding cause in those two anomalies will be interesting. I don't think 1972 had as much CO2 in the air as we do now. Is the area of temp measurement too small to say either way was is the cause? I'm not a climatologist. But what I do know is it's hot.

Re:Numbers from the article... (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42532377)

Is that roughly the Canadian January experience if you swap C to F? I'm just south of Canada and its a balmy 40s day, when usually January is spent entirely below zero for the month. Not unheard of, but unusual to have a thaw in January. I'm thinking of selling my snowshoes after the last two years, which is too bad, because I really enjoy snowshoeing along hiking trails... well other than the snowmobiles trying to run everyone over. Its roughly like moving about 100 to 150 miles south.

Re:Numbers from the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532599)

The temeratures are peaking around 50-51C (122-124 F) in some areas. For comparison I believe you will find Death Valley still holds the record for the hottest temperature, at 56.7 C (134 F).

Re:Numbers from the article... (0)

rolfwind (528248) | about 2 years ago | (#42532541)

So it would appear that 1972 and even 1973 were very hot years there. As well as it appears that 2013 will be as well. Finding cause in those two anomalies will be interesting.

Consistency. This last decade has it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm [skepticalscience.com]

Re:Numbers from the article... (0)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 2 years ago | (#42532567)

The explenation is very simple: we're moving away from an ice age. Yes; look at the north- and the south pole.

An ice age start when there's snow falling and water is freezing, and stays there (in whole or in part) untill the next winter.

The real question is not if there is global warming (there is, simply look at the available data; no need for extrapolating here), but how that global warming is going to affect the human species, in terms of habitablility, or not.

There are two outcomes:
1. It is habitable, or;
2. It is not habitable.

Then the next question, if not habitable:
1. Can we, and should we, adjust the climate? (dangerous), or;
2. Should we change our way of living, like engineering smal biospheres.

Re:Numbers from the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532731)

The explenation is very simple:

Anyone who starts off saying "It's simple" about any sort of multi-variable problem deserves a punch in the mouth on general principles. Because nothing meaningful is going to follow anyway.

Re:Numbers from the article... (2, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 2 years ago | (#42532857)

An ice age is not a multi-variable problem. Understanding how they came to be and changing the climate, however, is.

Since it is difficult in how it forms and goes away, I said it was dangerous to engineer a climate change, because it's a damn difficult multi-variable problem, and chances are we won't be able to predict the side effects of changing the delicate climate.

Yet I like to see anyone deny that we're still in an ice age, and how the ice is still melting more than there's water being frozen, anualy.

Re:Numbers from the article... (4, Insightful)

ssam (2723487) | about 2 years ago | (#42532665)

seeing a whole graph of temperature (or daily max, or daily mean or whatever) against time will always tell you much more about a trends than a list of its peaks can.

Re:Numbers from the article... (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 2 years ago | (#42532825)

Yesterday bumped Dec 20, 1972 out of third place and 1985 off the chart. Here's an updated list:

  1. January 7, 2013: 40.33 degrees
  2. December 21, 1972: 40.17
  3. January 8, 2013: 40.11
  4. December 20, 1972: 40.01
  5. December 22, 1972: 39.82
  6. January 1, 1973: 39.79
  7. January 6, 2013: 39.71
  8. December 17, 2002: 39.7
  9. January 2, 1973: 39.65
  10. January 3, 2013: 39.55
  11. December 16, 2002: 39.54
  12. December 30, 1972: 39.48
  13. December 31, 1972: 39.43
  14. January 27, 1936: 39.4
  15. January 1, 1990: 39.39
  16. January 4, 2013: 39.32
  17. January 5, 2013: 39.26
  18. January 2, 1990: 39.22
  19. January 2, 2013: 39.21
  20. December 18, 2002: 39.2

The good news is that it looks like it is starting to cool down. We will likely see a few more records broken before the end of the heat wave though.

Re:Numbers from the article... (1)

SmarterThanMe (1679358) | about 2 years ago | (#42532891)

{{citation needed}}

On So Much Fire? (3, Insightful)

Apharmd (2640859) | about 2 years ago | (#42532303)

I think that could be phrased better.

Re:On So Much Fire? (1)

belthize (990217) | about 2 years ago | (#42532363)

Phrasing it worse would certainly take a bit of effort. I had to read it 3 times before shaking my head and moving on to the comments.

Re:On So Much Fire? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#42533087)

Clearly, Australia has ALL THE FIRE.

Re:On So Much Fire? (1)

belthize (990217) | about 2 years ago | (#42533313)

Cheeky bastards. Why couldn't they just install really bright street lights if they wanted to be visible from space.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that Australia wasn't visible from space till it caught fire. I thought Africa was the dark continent.

Good News! (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#42532325)

Australia is pleased and proud to announce that the number of horrid and lethally venomous creatures per hectare has reached historic lows!

Re:Good News! (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42532417)

Gotta be a Washington DC joke in there somewhere.

Re:Good News! (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about 2 years ago | (#42533321)

Gotta be a Washington DC joke in there somewhere.

All the Jokes ARE in Washington DC?

This is BAD (5, Insightful)

Gablar (971731) | about 2 years ago | (#42532337)

Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that the north pole melted to record small levels this years. This is an isolated incident of freak weather, as was Sandy.

Re:This is BAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532767)

Sure thing, but then I can say India and China [thegatewaypundit.com] disagree. So since I've pointed out hundered dieing from cold and coldest winter in China in decades I guess thats proof that AWG doesn't exist, as least by your logic.

headline (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#42532355)

You know must of us English speakers, both in the USA and else were would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline. "Australia Is On So Much Fire" Sounds like George Lucas is posting now.

Re:headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532479)

No two Australian states are not on fire. <strongbad>

Re:headline (3, Funny)

seyyah (986027) | about 2 years ago | (#42532845)

You know must of us English speakers, both in the USA and else were would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline. "Australia Is On So Much Fire" Sounds like George Lucas is posting now.

Most of us English speakers would have written:
"You know most of us English speakers, both in the USA and elsewhere, would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline.

Re:headline (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#42533013)

You know must of us English speakers, both in the USA and else were would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline. "Australia Is On So Much Fire" Sounds like George Lucas is posting now.

That's the joke. It's a joke. the awkward structure makes the headline more humorous by highlighting the absurdity of the situation involved.

Plus 50? (4, Funny)

dugjohnson (920519) | about 2 years ago | (#42532375)

What's the big deal? It's 54 degrees here in Texas right now...what? metric? we don't do metric here in Texas. How much is that in 'merican? Wow, that IS hot. Never mind.

This is what happens when you disarm. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532395)

If only Australia had not implemented their weapons ban, patriotic citizens could defend themselves against the tyrannical fire department.

Re:This is what happens when you disarm. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532601)

Too soon [usatoday.com]

Deep Purple? (1)

Frohboy (78614) | about 2 years ago | (#42532475)

To be fair, one of the "new colours" should be used to indicate Smoke on the Water.

Re:Deep Purple? (4, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | about 2 years ago | (#42533299)

It appears that they are using it instead for Fire in the Sky.

Burning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532493)

Water. Earth. Fire. Air. Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.

Re:Burning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42533191)

This is what you get when you ridicule the guy who got stuck with Heart. He leaves and now you've got no Heart.

Self-Solving Problem (4, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#42532509)

Eventually all the vegetation will burn off and then there won't be any fuel for fires anymore! Problem solved!

I suspect next summer is going to be another bad year for fires in the USA. Seems like the entire goddamn west burned down last year. The sky was brown all summer. We cleared the layer of smoke in a plane, and the blue of the sky came as quite a shock. I'd actually forgotten the sky was supposed to look like that. I didn't want to descend back into the sludge, either. It was the first time in a couple of months that I'd had a breath of fresh air.

Re:Self-Solving Problem (1, Funny)

ssam (2723487) | about 2 years ago | (#42532715)

i look forward to this vegetation free world were i can be safe from forest fires.

Re:Self-Solving Problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532775)

Or burning off *all* the vegetation will release further amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (instead of trapping it in rotted down organic matter when the plant dies), leading to increased greenhouse effect, increasing climate change, more freak weather events, even more bushfires... so it could also become a vicious cycle too. Sure the fire'll extinguish itself, but it'll contribute to more too.

Affect global temperatures? (2, Interesting)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#42532569)

I wonder if this will create enough particulate in the atmosphere to reduce global temperatures.

Re:Affect global temperatures? (2)

jandrese (485) | about 2 years ago | (#42532679)

Yes. Now if you were to ask if it measurably reduced global temperatures that is probably a different answer.

Re:Affect global temperatures? (1)

ssam (2723487) | about 2 years ago | (#42532745)

depends on the balance with soot settling on icecaps and making them absorb more light.

Re:Affect global temperatures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532841)

Since a large amount of the gases released by burning the vegetation will be CO2, it's more likely to increase it.

Midnight Oil are prophets! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42532729)

How can we sleep while our beds are burning?

View from Space (5, Informative)

Tofof (199751) | about 2 years ago | (#42532789)

The summary somehow leaves out anything related to the headline - the view of the fires from space. Didn't even bother linking to the relevant NY Times article [nytimes.com] . Okay then.

For the real good stuff, though, check out the high res images in the Universe Today coverage [universetoday.com] , which showcases several of the images directly from Cmdr Hadfield's twitter feed [twitter.com] .

Well you know Austrialians (1)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#42532941)

everything is BIG... and its started with BEER...

*Sigh* Pedants... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 2 years ago | (#42532999)

I can't believe I'm reading comments complaining about the grammar of the post title. It's a perfectly hilarious bit of hyperbole, and I enjoyed it. "Man, Australia is on so freakin' much fire right now!"

These people must have already run out of stupid IRC arguments and stuff to downvote on Reddit and imgur for today...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?