×

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!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stars Remain In Their Usual Places; People Panic

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the why-is-the-alphabet-in-that-order? dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 468

asheller writes "The Star Tribune tells us the zodiac signs have shifted. Earth's wobble has shifted the signs, a new one's been added and many of us have changed signs. Formerly a Cancer, I've apparently been upgraded to Gemini and am now married to an Ophiuchus, a new sign. What's yor sign? The new Zodiac Chart is pretty interesting." Here are some priceless reactions to this celestial development. As long as the Chinese Zodiac is unaffected, I'll still be able to accurately judge people based on when they were born, so please indicate in comments your (new) sign and birth year animal, so we'll be able to know where you're coming from.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

468 comments

I ain't no Virgo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890558)

Give me Libra, or give me death!

Re:I ain't no Virgo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890588)

Virgo maybe not, virgin most definitely yes.

Re:I ain't no Virgo (5, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890676)

Virgo maybe not, virgin most definitely yes.

Says the AC on Slashdot :P

Why don't you try "popping your cherry" and get a Slashdot ID. I'll even give you a cigarette for afterwards.

Re:I ain't no Virgo (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890666)

Hey I got cancer!

This a re-org for the foreign offices only (1, Flamebait)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890564)

I'm not a zodiac follower and I could care less about my horoscope. (Though today it says my karma may change). However, the tropical zodiac does not change which is typically what we use.

Since this is a topic I care very little for, but just enough to post another article I will provide a citation.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/14/astrologers-get-their-say-in-the-horoscope-hubbub/ [time.com]

It is very short so it's fairly safe to RTFA, but be warned I won't debate any of this. I really don't care enough to apologize if some zen buddhist tao roman catholic devout follower of zod says I am specifically wrong and a celestial being of my choosing will strike me down. (Stay Puff Marshmallow Man)

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (5, Informative)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890584)

You could care less? so in fact you do care ?

I, however, salute your attempt to care less...

for the last time it is: "I could'NT care less"... meaning it is impossible for you to care even less about something

I could care less means that you care and could actually care less, someday...

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890608)

for the last time it is:

I strongly suspect you're wrong :p

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891032)

I could care less.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890648)

I am really not a grammar nazi, but I couldn't resit correcting your correction.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (1)

black_lbi (1107229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890750)

(sigh)
I guess it's true what they say: sometimes by fixing a bug you introduce new ones.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890814)

I am really not a grammar nazi, but I couldn't resit correcting your correction.

And I couldn't resist correcting your correction of his correction. :-)

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890658)

A valiant attempt, but the apostrophe goes between the N and the T, to take the place of the missing O.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (2)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890662)

You could care less? so in fact you do care ?

I, however, salute your attempt to care less...

for the last time it is: "I could'NT care less"... meaning it is impossible for you to care even less about something

I could care less means that you care and could actually care less, someday...

While I agree with your sentiment 100%, is it really the last time? Are you never going to correct someone again?

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890712)

Ahh, but in this case, the use of the phrase "could care less" is in fact accurate. If the parent poster could, in fact, NOT care less, then said poster would not have posted. As the parent did post, the poster does in fact care, and CAN care less.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (0)

owlnation (858981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890762)

for the last time it is: "I could'NT care less"... meaning it is impossible for you to care even less about something

I could care less means that you care and could actually care less, someday...

And you know this wasn't what he meant... how? Grammar Nazis: people most of us either could, or couldn't, care less about.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890910)

If you don't know, then it's meaningless.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (0)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890824)

I would like to thank you for contributing nothing to the conversation.

I obviously cared to some degree, but now I care even less. You have taken from me what little feeling I had left. See what you have done?

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890830)

I could care less means that you care and could actually care less, someday...

No, "I could care less..." does not mean "you care and could actually care less...", it means *I* could actually care less...

What you actually meant to say was...

I could care less means that I care and could actually care less, someday...

Get it straight...

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (2)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890838)

for the last time it is: "I could'NT care less"... meaning it is impossible for you to care even less about something

Clearly if he could not care less he wouldn't have bothered saying so. Now to get back on topic, this gem of a story by the star is actually popular on twitter now which means a whole ton of people ought to care less.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (0)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890908)

What if I don't really feel like making the effort to not care to the absolute limit of apathy.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (0)

sirlatrom (1162081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890984)

Some might say that it should be spelled "couldn't", but I'm not a native English speaker.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891014)

I could care less means that you care and could actually care less, someday...

I couldn't care less.

Zodiac hasn't changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890578)

The zodiac signs are based on the four seasons and their beginning, middle & end not constellations. Zodiac signs haven't changed and won't change unless we gain a 5th season.

The zodiac has changed, just like the seasons (1)

Albinoman (584294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890872)

Uh, yeah. You obviously have no idea how the zodiac symbols were really decided. On the day you were born the Sun is sitting in the middle of a constellation. That was how it was determined. You are also ignoring the fact that not only do the zodiac symbols rotate slowly through the calender, because of the exact same second rotational axis, so do the seasons. In 11,500 years, Dec. 21 will be midsummer in the northern hemisphere. I don't know how you'd think it has anything to do with seasons, anyway. Leave it to the superstitious to ignore any actual facts or history.

Re:The zodiac has changed, just like the seasons (4, Informative)

An Anonymous Coward (236011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891020)

Uh, yeah. You obviously have no idea how the zodiac symbols were really decided. On the day you were born the Sun is sitting in the middle of a constellation. That was how it was determined. You are also ignoring the fact that not only do the zodiac symbols rotate slowly through the calender, because of the exact same second rotational axis, so do the seasons. In 11,500 years, Dec. 21 will be midsummer in the northern hemisphere. I don't know how you'd think it has anything to do with seasons, anyway. Leave it to the superstitious to ignore any actual facts or history.

Uh, yeah. You obviously have no idea how the zodiac symbols were really decided. Western astrology has always used the tropical zodiac which is based on the four seasons, instead of the sidereal zodiac which is based on the location of the sun in the various constellations. I don't know how you'd think it doesn't have anything to do with seasons anyway, I've known that since at least middle school. Leave it to the self-righteous to ignore any actual facts or history.

See also: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/?hpt=C2 [cnn.com]

Re:The zodiac has changed, just like the seasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891070)

Sounds like someone has watched that old YouTube video on astronomy. I am also now on my own mission to find this "calender"[sic] that all these zodiac symbols rotate through.

Is "dumbfuck" a sign? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890582)

Formally? Do you perhaps mean FORMERLY? What kind of gabootz can't tell the difference???

Re:Is "dumbfuck" a sign? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890692)

I'm pretty sure he means formally... ya know... like wearing a tuxedo.

Re:Is "dumbfuck" a sign? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890850)

The former in formal attire?

My new horoscope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890594)

... now says I'll meet a large rhinoceros named Desmond.

Re:My new horoscope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891006)

Hello Dirk!

Hilarious, but isn't /. meant to be serious? (1, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890602)

I mean, yeah this was funny and all, but if I wanted to read an aggregation site covering spoof sites like The Onion, I'd do so.

Re:Hilarious, but isn't /. meant to be serious? (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890726)

It's a bit of a stretch, but science is part of news for nerds. The fact that there's a disturbingly large portion of the public who's gullible enough to buy into the most appallingly stupid idea in millennia is kind of on track.

The articles cited aren't spoofs. The AP is perhaps the world's most important news service. Depressingly, the fact that people bought into it is real news.

(Now, I could turn around and question whether the number of people who actually bought into this was significant enough to merit it being real news. So there's a separate story on whether the wire services manufactured something from a relatively small number of stupid people. But sadly, I think it's pretty clear that the dimwits have a pretty substantial caucus.)

Here's your sign! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890610)

Alarasta la sohondi bolti catfish blowout

Im an Aries Damnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890626)

Screw the freaking fish, Im not changing.

Now if thats not a clandestine response representative of an aries, I dont know what would be.

This screws up the wholes documenterary on the twelve tribes of kobol came to earth

cock happy (2)

scrout (814004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890628)

My father, 77, me 53, my son 17, all born Chinese year of the cock. Glad that isn't changing....

Behavioural placebo working inversely (1)

fleeped (1945926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890640)

It will be funny to see people changing their behaviour towards the suggested behaviour of their new sign. Or sad, if you really think about it.

Re:Behavioural placebo working inversely (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890704)

I think it'd make for a pretty interesting sociological study. I can't wait to see how some of the people I work with are acting on Monday.

And not a single fuck was given that day (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890680)

Lets be honest: nothing will change. Nothing. You have a new sign, yay. It just means guys will have to change their pickup lines and girls will have to look at a different part of the horoscope page.

When you were born and how the stars were aligned will have no impact on your personality. The influence of what those nutjobs told you about your sign might have some impact, but you have all the control over who you are. In fact, many of the descriptions will fit you anyway because of how god damn vague they are. It's just a matter of interpreting the text.

BTW, I've gone from Libra to Virgo. I was born year of the monkey.

really... (1)

Raleel (30913) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890688)

even if you follow astrology a little (I do, for amusement), this is f-ing retarded.

Re:really... (5, Informative)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890860)

Yup. Anyone who has taken a cursory glance at an astronomy or a biology or really any science book knows astrology is absurd. More than anything, I think this story is worthwhile for pointing out how big a place astrological signs and their "meaning" still have in our world. Hopefully this helps push it out.

In actuality, people have known this for millennia. The precession of Earth's axis has been known about since the Greeks, and is pretty basic astronomy. The wobble of our axis takes about 26,000 years to go around once, and since the current system has been around in some form for about 2,500 years, that means we've gone 1/10 of the way around. 12 signs, 10% off - that means most people change by one sign, and lo, so it is.

Additionally, constellations are not all the same size, so some should be much more common than others. More to the point, constellations do not form a perfectly connected circle, so many people are born technically between signs. What this means is that astrological signs are, at this point, completely dependent on a man-made calendrical system, which have changed throughout our history, sometimes radically.

Flash required ? (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890716)

The new Zodiac Chart is pretty interesting.

Yeah, pretty interesting choice of Adobe Flash for a static piece of text and illustration.

Is that supposed to act as a poor man's DRM ?

Neon (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890732)

Some girl with psychic powers, she said "T-bone, what's your
sign"
I blink and answer "Neon," I thought I'd blow her mind.

-- Tom "T-Bone" Stankus [lyricsondemand.com] , 1979 [dmdb.org]

Goodbye Caprica (1)

ChrisK87 (901429) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890748)

I just got demoted from a caprican to a sagitaron. I'm sure all the battlestar galactica buffs out there feel my pain.

Gemini (1)

Skelde (697341) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890772)

Hmm, my birthday is June 1st, im now a Taurus instead of Gemmini?
Not that i believe in Horrorscopes.

So now I'm the suicidal bishie Marty Stu... (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890776)

rather than the Excalibur-wielding badass? crap.

Well, at least I'm not a chick, so there's that. Sucks to be you, Ophiuchus!

But the ecliptic hasn't moved. (5, Informative)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890780)

The ecliptic from the Earth's perspective is constant (by definition), and the Sun's travel across the ecliptic is about as constant. Astrologers don't REALLY believe that constellations occupy precisely 30 degree chunks of the ecliptic, with Aries starting precisely at the vernal equinox. The constellations were just a conventional way to label those segments.

What's slightly more disconcerting about this article is that Astrology knew about this long long ago. They have a name for when a new constellation reaches the vernal equinox, it's the beginning of an "Age". You know, like the "Age of Aquarius"?

Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit, but even within its own formulation this article should have no impact on it.

Ignoring Science? (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890782)

I think Astrology is an interesting thing. The idea is pretty simple. The states and positions of the stars when you were born, and where they are today, affect you. That's fine. If people want to believe in burning bushes, dudes that can turn water into wine, etc., etc., etc. I hardly find it any more or less valid than anything else involved in religion and faith.

What I find particularly curious here is that an Astrologer should be an Astronomer first, and there is a backlash. Everything they do is fundamentally based upon the ability to accurately determine the states and positions of stars at a given time right? That's Astronomy.

Soooo.... Astronomy is now saying, "Hey dudes. We've been reading the "map" wrong all this time. Didn't account for this, that, and all the what have yous and stuff." Well, then wouldn't the most genuine and sincere there for an Astrologist to do is be thankful? Possibly peer review it, take it into consideration, and then use the knowledge to more accurately practice their craft?

Re:Ignoring Science? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890852)

Fly with me lesbian seagull....

Come on..... Join in... I know you want too....

Oh fly with me lesbian seagull!

Re:Ignoring Science? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890868)

Dammit.... That was supposed to be in a reply to the token vegan and animal rights activist here!!

Nooo. My +5 funny bombed.

this is ancient (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890786)

Seriously..... we've known about the precession of the equinoxes since 130 BC.... how the hell does this make the headlines????????
And what kind of name is Parke Kunkle?!!!

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

Tired of hearing about this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890792)

No ones sign actually changed it only applies to people born this year.

Interesting... (1)

SirLoadALot (991302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890804)

Hmm, my sign appears to have shifted from Leo the Lion to the Michelin Man. My birth animal remains the Mexican Jumping Bean.

Doesn't affect westerners. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890832)

Only the sidereal zodiac is affected by this. Western culture adheres to the tropical zodiac, which hasn't changed.

News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890874)

Why is this crap even posted on /.?

tropical zodiac hasn't changed (0)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890876)

Since most horoscopes are based on the tropical zodiac, which is tied to the equinoxes and the seasons, this points out that people who use astrology have always been implicitly assuming that the seasons have more effect on behaviour than the stars. Hear that! You haven't been using the stars for a long time. You haven't ever used the stars. The stars don't influence you (unless you are an astronomer). '' The magnetic pole has shifted but your compass still points north.

The real fraud here is (1, Informative)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890878)

The real fraud here is the way the science media sets up this same straw man every year so their believers can break their arms patting themselves on the back feeling superior to "those stupid pseudoscientific wannabees who believe in astrology".

The reality is that, as TFA hints at, western astrology hasn't been based on stars for thousands of years. ...approximately since the constellations were when they were assigned. It's based on equinoxes. Open any book on astrology that goes deeper than sun-sign horoscopes and you'll find a thorough treatment of this topic in one of the first few chapters. But most of you enjoy dumping on stuff you haven't read much about.

I regret that I have to say this but note that I have not expressed an opinion on the merits of astrology in this post. If you reply as if I had, you're only proving your inability to participate in neutral discussion.

Re:The real fraud here is (2)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891056)

You say "straw man", I say "critical research failure". For my evidence, I submit every other science-related Slashdot article ever published, of which all have at least one post starting with "I have a PhD in the field and..." followed by an in-depth analysis of all the ways the article is wrong, regardless of the subject's notoriety.

When journalism gets even the facts about journalism itself wrong, you can't expect much from them with regards to accuracy. Or as a wise man once said, "never blame malice for that which can be adequately explained by incompetence".

why 13? (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890888)

doesn't 13 seem even more arbitrary than 12 somehow?

does adding a sign to get 13 somehow divide the celestial sphere into a neater so many degrees/minutes of arc?

(probably there's a RTFM someplace to discover this, but, y'know... it's lazier to ask here)

Re:why 13? (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891028)

There is nothing arbitrary about 13. It is 13 because that is the number of constellations that the Sun actually passes through.

Old signs shouldn't be affected? (2)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890892)

Maybe the article explains this, but I'm at work and can't read it. Wouldn't the stars changing only affect people born after the change(s) occurred? After all, if you were born under the sign of the Cancer, then the Earth wobbles differently, you were still born under the sign of the Cancer, but people born after the new wobble might not be. And since this is a matter of the Earth changing, they can't claim some obnoxious relativistic hocus pocus.

Re:Old signs shouldn't be affected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890944)

Thank you

Re:Old signs shouldn't be affected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891010)

Wouldn't the stars changing only affect people born after the change(s) occurred?

No. The stars changing mostly affects Cthulhu, who was spawned well before the change.

Astrology and Religion ... damn (2)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890916)

Religion pisses me off more than you can imagine. But Astrology ... oh, Astrology is even worse. How can stupidity reach such amazing levels as to allow religion, astrology and such other crap to exist in the year 2011?

Re:Astrology and Religion ... damn (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891034)

I tend to prefer Astrology. At least people of different signs don't kill each other.

Tropical Astrology vs Sidereal Astrology (1)

Randwulf (997659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891004)

There has been a lot of talk about Astrology, lately. Some people seem to have become distraught over their "sign changing" (even though it really hasn't).

There is a difference between Tropical Astrology and Sidereal Astrology. Tropical Astrology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_astrology [wikipedia.org] ) has the 12 Zodiac signs we are all used to.

Sidereal Astrology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology [wikipedia.org] ) does things differently. It has 13 Zodiac Signs and different dates for each sign. It's not really new, and it's certainly not any more real than the Tropical Astrology. Simply ignore it and nothing really changes.

astrologers don't care about this, well, didn't (4, Funny)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891058)

I happen to have paid for astrological readings many times. I don't really think astrology has anything to do with reality or astronomy, not even for a second; but I do enjoy it. It's rather like how I enjoy The Matrix even though it doesn't make any sense at all.

I happened to ask my astrologer about this many years ago (it's not like they just switched a couple days ago) and the astrologer was actually aware that the astrological symbols had changed, but assured me the Zodiac signs did not. It's been totally decoupled for decades and astrologers seem to be aware of it.

It's not like if you learned to precisely measure something (I don't know what it would be); you'd suddenly change all the symbols on your Tarot deck either. Heh. They're all complicated systems of nonsense. They don't really require further adjustments.

I'm sure there'll be TONS of new astrology books coming out because this is suddenly big news for some reason. It may even cause a schism, but it doesn't really matter which system you pick. A really good astrologer reads the man, not the stars.

Still a Leo either way (1)

Torin Darkflight (851576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891064)

Even if the new zodiac calendar did affect me, my sign wouldn't change. I was born August 15th, which puts me in Leo on both calendars. The closer you were born towards the end of your sign, the more likely you'll retain the same sign on the new calendar, as most of them have a brief overlap if you compare the dates on both calendars. I guess I could be considered one of the lucky few that falls in Leo's overlap.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...