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!

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!

Gliese 581d Confirmed as 'Habitable' Exoplanet

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-you-wouldn't-want-to-live-there dept.

Space 451

An anonymous reader writes "A rocky world orbiting a nearby star was confirmed (PDF) as the first planet outside our Solar System to meet key requirements for sustaining life." The "key requirement" was actually a Starbucks — astronomers were pretty surprised to find out that they like their coffee burnt on Gliese 581d too.

cancel ×

451 comments

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

We've sent them a message already... (5, Funny)

cruff (171569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154170)

From TFA:

However, humanity has already tried to make contact with the new planet. During Australia's National Science Week in August 2009, Cosmos magazine partnered with the Australian government, NASA and the CSIRO to run a 13-day campaign to collect goodwill messages from the public to be sent to Gliese 581d.

The initiative, known as Hello From Earth, collected 26,000 messages, which were transmitted by NASA's Tidbinbilla facility. The signal is not due to arrive until January 2030.

At which time it will be returned because we failed to include sufficient postage.

Re:We've sent them a message already... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154286)

yeah. and you wanna know how that happened? the blacks, that's who. it's their fault.

dumb niggers.

Re:We've sent them a message already... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154348)

yeah. and you wanna know how that happened? the blacks, that's who. it's their fault.

dumb niggers.

Wow... Just... Wow. :/

Re:We've sent them a message already... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154450)

You are now covered in little troll bites.

Re:We've sent them a message already... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154466)

if you hadn't cheaped out on the IQ stakes, there'd be no problem at all, but noooooooooo, and now you're having to go all projectionist on us and pretend it was someone else's fault. Come clean and admit it - you're a stupid cunt. Once you get that off your chest, you'll feel much better for it.

Re:We've sent them a message already... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154414)

"Hello from Earth?" They should have called it "Hello World!"

Re:We've sent them a message already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154464)

At which time the message will be returned, in person, by the battle fleet of the Gliese 581d Empire.

I'm all a-tingle wondering what my new slave profession is going to be. I'm hoping for chief fan operator for one of their more important leaders. Thanks Scientists!

Re:We've sent them a message already... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154622)

More likely, you'll be dinner. Unfortunately for you nerds, dry aging in a cool dark cellar and marinated in mountain dew and cheetos is a popular way to prepare their meat on Gliese 581d.

Re:We've sent them a message already... (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154704)

I guess I find it really odd that we would do that. First thing I would do is turn our Radio Telescopes to it and see if we can hear anything. Seems kind of rude to just start shouting at them. Of course if you think about it Humans have had a civilisation for well over 4000 years on Earth. Yes it was primitive but we have been reading and writing and smelting metals and creating art for more than 4000 years. We have only had radio for about 100 of those years and radio telescopes for around 50 years. There could be a civilisation on that planet equal to 1900 and we couldn't talk to them.

Re:We've sent them a message already... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154784)

At which time it will be returned because we failed to include sufficient postage.

Actually, they locked the message down with DRM, and the recipients don't have a persistent connection with the key server...

300,000 years to get there (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154174)

It would be a waste of time to go there within the near future. What we should do, is wait until we've mastered time travel, travel into the future for light-speed transportation, and hope we don't overshoot and end up when we've destroyed ourselves. Wait a second, why does that sounds like a cheesy sci-fi sitcom?

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154386)

We could build a generation ship, most of the trip would be coasting anyway. If there are any asteroids or strays, we could harvest resources from them. If not, well, colonists will just have to go green and recycle...

Seriously, though, recycling is what this mission hinges on, in lieu of asteroid mining.

Re:300,000 years to get there (3, Informative)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154428)

300,000 years would be longer than there have been anatomically modern humans on Earth. If we make it, by the time we get there, we'll be a whole new species.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154570)

You are assuming without lack of new stimuli in the closed environment of a space craft that humans would still evolve. There have been reports that humans are no longer evolving even here on earth, since at least the last few thousand years.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154642)

I'm not sure that I buy that. What's happened is that more adults make it to adulthood and reproduce, I'd be very much surprised if there's less evolution going on. It's more likely that it's just not noticeable due to not knowing where to look. Genetic mutations don't stop just because it's no longer necessary.

Re:300,000 years to get there (-1, Troll)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154774)

Oh. We are changing.
They manner in which humans breed has changed dramatically in the last 50 years.
Now it is the poor and the stupid that have more children that survive to mate.
The smart and successful are having fewer children.
The human race is in a race to the bottom.
As long as we continue on our current social justice path this is the inevitable result.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154666)

...because oh so much evolution occurs over the course of ten thousand years. There have been much heavier influences on human development, such as agriculture, metalworking, medicine, and similar technological discoveries that have either overshadowed or also influenced our development. If anything, there's been too much noise in our systems to observe any small changes in the last 500 generations.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154668)

Maybe humans will adapt to space life / life on the spacecraft better in the 300000 years on the spacecraft

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154676)

"There have been reports"?

There have also been reports that the world is flat and that the Earth is the center of the Solar System. Those reports contain the same quantity of credibility.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

babywhiz (781786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154694)

I would have to disagree with 'not evolving here on earth' (since your sarc tag is missing)......Autism is the next step in evolution....just needs a few bugs to be worked out....which will happen naturally, over time.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154606)

Is that 300,000 years to a static observer, or to the party in transit, though? If you're talking about putting that much mass in space to start with, a power plant capable of getting up to a non-negligible fraction of light speed wouldn't be so far-fetched, even with current tech - the humans on Earth may have evolved into an entirely new species, but the guys on the ship will only have had time to start a few religions, develop their own art, science and language, and maybe work out how to turn the whole ship around and deliver a cosmic bitchslap back to the people who decided to cram them into a tin can for a few centuries in the first place.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154656)

The power plant is one thing, what becomes a problem is reaction mass. In order for your power plant to push your ship along, you need something to fling out the back of your ship. If you're maintaining any significant thrust for a long time, that becomes nearly all of your ship's starting weight.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154648)

Those aren't aliens, they're just the returning expedition we sent out to check if that system next door was habitable.

Re:300,000 years to get there (4, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154476)

According to TFA it looks to be habitable in principle (using Earth-centric assumptions about complex life, of course) but toxic to humans, so perhaps not a prime candidate for humanity's first extrasolar excursion.

Re:300,000 years to get there (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154594)

I doubt you're going to be mining asteroids unless the asteroid is going exactly the same direction and velocity as your own ship. Which sort of implies it set off at the same time as you too.

Re:300,000 years to get there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154780)

We could also breed a master race of space unicorns who can fly us there protected in magical bubbles created by their horns. That's almost as unlikely as building a "generation ship" in any economically feasible way that will survive for 300,000 years.

(And bee-tee-dub, interstellar space is fucking EMPTY. Think "throwing 2 pinheads in random directions at random times inside the Astrodome, and expecting them to collide" empty. They're not going to run across "stray asteroids" that they can stop and mine, you fucking space nutter. Do you really think there's a big sign up, "LAST ASTEROID FOR 2.7 LIGHT YEARS!"?)

indeed (4, Funny)

Artifex (18308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154182)

Since it's within the Goldilocks zone, I'm guessing that the Starbucks serves oatmeal not too hot, and not too cold.

Re:indeed (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154544)

I'm not traveling 20 light years to eat instant oatmeal when I've got a Jamba Juice up the road next door to Starbucks, so I can get my coffee and some good oats in one easy trip.

Goldilocks != "Habitable" (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154546)

It's a pretty loose definition of "habitable" to include only "You probably won't burst immediately into flame or turn into an instant icecube upon stepping off the ship." Methinks it might also be good to include little things like "oxygen," "survivable air pressure," "water," "soil that can support some form of planet life," "enough atmosphere to protect against cosmic radiation," etc.

Re:Goldilocks != "Habitable" (5, Informative)

WhiplashII (542766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154716)

You won't find oxygen in an atmosphere without life already on the planet. Oxygen is too reactive.

first post (2, Funny)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154188)

When you get readey to go, don't forget the pox laden blankets.

Re:first post (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154284)

When you get ready to go, don't forget to bring a towel.

FTFY

Re:first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154460)

This WHOOOSHED right through your ass.

Re:first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154778)

I think AC's response wooshed right through your ass. I saw no humor in "pox laden blankets" and a Google search yielded no memes, etc. The reference to South Park's Towlie was humorous, though.

Re:first post (2)

deapbluesea (1842210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154830)

Or Hitchhiker's Guide, which predates South Park culture by a bit.

Re:first post (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154602)

No you didn't, and you didn't just make it incorrect, you ignored (what is probably) your history. See what happens when you steal someone's land and try to commit genocide? It hangs around your necks for centuries.

You mean the native fraudsters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154682)

No you didn't, and you didn't just make it incorrect, you ignored (what is probably) your history. See what happens when you steal someone's land and try to commit genocide? It hangs around your necks for centuries.

More likely yours. You sound like the type.

You know those Native Americans who sold Manhattan to the colonists for a few beads?

Fraudsters.

Think about it: the common explanation is that the natives had no concept of land ownership. That means that they accepted the beads in exchange for something they believed that they didn't own. That's called fraud.

Re:first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154724)

Yeah, because I'm sure GP was around centuries ago and handed out the blankets himself. If not, I'm sure he is one of the direct descendants of someone who did. If not, I'm sure you can bitch and moan about it anyway, despite the fact that he had nothing to do with it.

I'm sure the original immigrants maliciously handed out blankets, fully realizing that they were likely carriers for a disease they had long since fought off with their own medicine. Also that the recipients of the blankets hadn't fought off the disease. There's no chance at all that it was an accident. I'm not saying everything bad in history was an accident, but not everything is the evil that you see in each dark shadow.

Re:first post (2)

WhiplashII (542766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154732)

No one alive stole it. No one alive was stolen from. Let it go.

outer rim of goldilocks zone (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154190)

so it's probably still pretty cold for us? maybe hoth-like?

Re:outer rim of goldilocks zone (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154480)

Sounds great for skiing!

Wow ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154194)

Has it only been 16 years since we discovered the first exoplanet?

I remember before I graduated university, the astronomy geeks were excited about this as something that was being worked on and the concept of finding a planet by detecting transit in front of the star made my brain hurt.

Now we can tell all of this ... of course, if it would take 300,000 years to get there with current technology, it's still unimaginably far. Still, it's hard not to believe that if there's one that might be habitable "only" 20 light years away ... the universe must simply be teeming with life.

Re:Wow ... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154456)

Here is something that may interest you. This is a time-lapse video of asteroids discoveries. You'll notice the amount and distance increasing considerably as we reach the present. This shows the difference between technologies 20 years ago and the current ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw

Re:Wow ... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154664)

    I almost got bored with that. I skipped ahead from the middle to close to the end, and saw the big green ring, so I had to go back and watch the missing parts.

    It's really amazing. But I have to think, we don't watch inwards of our own path enough. If there are that many objects outward of our own orbit, from the sun, there should be quite a few more inward. I know, I know, the infinite expanse of space, versus the distance between our own star and our dinky little planet. Still, you'd think for future space exploration, we'd end up mining at least some of those objects, and the area between Venus and Mars would be more likely to mine, rather than Earth to Jupiter.

    Too bad the scale isn't right. It looks like all we should see at night is the cloud of asteroids surrounding us. Every point on that video is much larger than the true size of any of them. I like this video [youtube.com] which gives a good idea of relative sizes. All those asteroid dots on the map would be imperceptible once you got up to even the first star size.

Re:Wow ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154686)

Here is something that may interest you. This is a time-lapse video of asteroids discoveries.

That is one of the coolest things I've seen in a while.

Thanks.

Mod parent up (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154750)

That video was amazing - what you don't know can certainly hurt you. Thanks for the, uh, "heads up".

Re:Wow ... (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154662)

just over 20 years ago, the idea of discovering exoplanets was a joke.

Literally, within my life time, people where saying that there weren't any other planets, anywhere.

Avatar 2 (2)

derrickh (157646) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154228)

I call dibs on the tall blue chick with the hot body and prehensile tail. ...hmm..after reading the article, it seems that she'd probably be a short , squat woman with reddish tinged skin. ..oh well, I'd still hit it,

D

Re:Avatar 2 (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154332)

Great, I hope you enjoy your dwarf-lady (Gimli would approve). I call dibs on the Unobtanium... and Princess Leia.

Re:Avatar 2 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154658)

I though Princess Leia was unobtanium.

Re:Avatar 2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154748)

Philip Jose Farmer already has dibs

Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154232)

At first, I read:
"Gliese 581d orbits on the outer fringes of the star's 'Goldilocks zone', where it is not so hot that water boils away, nor so cold that water is perpetually frozen. Instead, the temperature is just right for water to exist in liquid form."

But then I also read:
"The denser air and thick clouds would keep the surface in a perpetual murky red twilight, and its large mass means that surface gravity would be around double that on Earth....A spaceship travelling close to light speed would take more than 20 years to get there, while our present rocket technology would take 300,000 years."

Can't we find a more habitable planet closer to home that has water, and is reachable within say, 2 months? [cosmosmagazine.com]

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (3, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154326)

The importance of this isn't that we can now send a team to colonize it. The importance of this is that we now have actual evidence that there are other planets that are theoretically habitable (Gliese581d doesn't sound like a good vacation spot, but it sounds comparable to some parts of Siberia or Antartica). We just one of the lower bounds in the Drake Equation.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154524)

The importance of this isn't that we can now send a team to colonize it. The importance of this is that we now have actual evidence that there are other planets that are theoretically habitable (Gliese581d doesn't sound like a good vacation spot, but it sounds comparable to some parts of Siberia or Antartica). We just one of the lower bounds in the Drake Equation.

There have always been planets that were theoretically habitable. Actually habitable is a different story. Mars is theoretically habitable, actually habitable is yet to be proven. Gliese 581d "meets key requirements for sustaining life" That doesn't mean it could sustain our life. The only thing really stated is that it has the minimum things that would be required for some type of life to exist there.

Even on our own planet, there are many parts that are not habitable, at least for most creatures. The Antarctic is not habitable, at least by most life forms on earth. People can exist there for short times to do research and the like, but it is not habitable because it cannot be sustained without food and resources from elsewhere. And yet, an entire planet like the Antarctic would meet the same minimal requirements for life as Gliese 581d.

Gliese 581d is an important discovery, but it just confirms what statistically we knew all along -- that there are other planets in the universe that could support some type of life. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154730)

No, it confirms what was suspected, not known.
Well, NOW it's known.

And this is huge and exciting, I'm not sure why you are blase about finding a planet where life as we know it could exist.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154696)

We just one of the lower bounds in the Drake Equation.

Yeah, well I just two of them.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

rhendershot (46429) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154710)

they seem to be saying 'potentially earth-like'. That's far and away from 'theoretical', unless I'm missing something...

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154844)

We just one of the lower bounds in the Drake Equation.

You just accidentally the whole verb.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154360)

Mars is "more habitable" in what way? The fact that low gravity has problems just like high gravity does? The fact that there is no protection from radiation as offered by the planet we have today? The fact that the planet rarely, if ever gets warm enough for liquid water on the surface? The fact that the planet has an atmosphere that is useless to any lifeform that we know of? Your idea of habitable and mine must be fairly different.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154430)

Didn't you see 'Total Recall' ?
We can bring technology there to terraform the planet!

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154442)

It's a little early to count Mars out yet. It probably won't be habitable to, say, multicellular life, but one can conceive some sort of extremophiles that might be able to make it on, or below the surface of Mars.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154814)

That's fantastic news to those fellow slashdotters who are working diligently away in a dark basement to devolve back into a single-celled amoeba-like parasitic mass firmly attached to its progenitors. But, speaking for the multicellular life forms, the sooner we have an escape plan, the better.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154734)

It's more habitable by not being 20 light years away and for being an extensively mapped and analysed planet. It's feasible (though not necessarily practical or economical) to send people to Mars and for them to live on the planet, albeit shielded from the environment in domes or heavy structures.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (5, Insightful)

PeterM from Berkeley (15510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154574)

Sir,

    We do not even have a self-sustaining colony on Antarctica, which is warmer than mars, and has unlimited air and water. Our colonies on Antarctica are nowhere near self-sustaining. Mars is colder than Antarctica, water is scarce, and there's NO oxygen and barely any atmosphere.

    In other words, calling Mars "habitable" is like calling rocks "edible". The rocks might become edible if you ground them down to dust, added plants, and then ate the plants.

--PeterM

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (4, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154698)

Antarctica is not a good comparison. The reason why we do not have a self-sustaining colony there is not primarily technical, but rather economical. It is way simpler to fly in supplies to the few research stations we have there than to setup a whole economy there. Technically - set up a nuclear reactor, use waste heat to heat some greenhouses and off you go.

Re:Gliese 581d in the 'Goldilocks Zone' (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154758)

Why would we need or want one on Antarctica?

Let's go visit Gliese 581d... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154240)

So let's see. It's only 20 light years away, but wait...the speed record for a space craft is 157,078 m/hr...hmmm...that works out to only 4,272 *years* to get to Gliese 581d. On second thought, maybe I'll stay here a while longer!

Re:Let's go visit Gliese 581d... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154356)

I was going to say it seems a lot, but remember we've developed the technology to do that in the last 100 years, and the rate of development is gathering pace... but then I remembered (with the timely last Endeavour flight this week) that the West is no longer interested in going for a technology win, it's going to settle for the much more banal financial or domination :(

Let the Exploitation continue! (2)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154246)

So I say this world is knackered. Let's get as much out of it as we can, take off and nuke the site from orbit.

Then start Earth 2 on Gliese 581d.

It's the only way to be sure.

(We'd put all the telephone sanitizers on the 3rd ship, right?)

i like my coffee with caffeine (-1, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154292)

that is the functional quality of coffee that makes it drinkable to me

there are no aesthetic qualities to discern in the flavor. its a bitter bean. in the rainbow of coffee flavors, its still just a bitter bean, and therefore without aesthetic attraction

maybe you can just admit you are a caffeine addict like me, and your supposed aesthetic considerations are just a case of the emperor's new clothes

Re:i like my coffee with caffeine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154344)

Uhm, no. Some coffee is nicer than other coffee. Some coffee tastes like crap, some is very nice.
I don't go around sniffing it and checking the sediment and the other garbage that wine snobs do (though I'm sure there are also coffee snobs) - but seriously, to say it all tastes horrible and the same is silly.

Re:i like my coffee with caffeine (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154418)

I can easily say it all taste awful. I don't drink coffee because it taste like bile. Gussy it up with cream, sugar or anything you want and it still taste awful.

It doesn't bother me since I'm not a caffeine addict. Aside from what naturally appears in foods, I don't consume it at all.

Re:i like my coffee with caffeine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154826)

I am perfectly willing to believe that to some people all coffee tastes horrible. But yes, to other people there is good coffee, and bad coffee. What separates the two also varies from person to person. To some people, good coffee is full of foamed milk and sugar. To others it's a nice smooth taste they're looking for. To each his own.

Re:i like my coffee with caffeine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154390)

That's not true. I love the caffeine too, but if the coffee is brewed properly, there are complex flavors that vary based on the type of bean, the soil and conditions in which its grown, and the method by which its brewed. Just because you can't perceive them doesn't mean they're not there.

oh i can perceive them (1, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154584)

if you put a blueberry in a pile of shit i think it would change the flavor subtly, but it will still taste like shit

likewise, i have no doubt that bean type, soil, growing conditions, etc., changes the taste of the coffee bean... something that tastes bitter, and always tasted bitter, and always will taste bitter, as the overarching flavor, no matter what the subtleties

what i am saying is that it does not matter the subtleties when the overarching flavor always dominates. and since with coffee the overarching flavor is hot and bitter, that condemns all flavors of coffee, no matter what the slight modifications that fills your mind with supposed merit that is essentially meaningless, since you are willfully ignoring the dominant flavor for psychological and addictive reasons

Re:oh i can perceive them (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154768)

Oh, so someone who likes the taste of coffee does so because "he is willfully ignoring the dominant flavor for psychological and addictive reasons", while your dislike is based on pure rationality? Actually, I like the bitter flavor. Be it in coffee, be it in beer - preferably a strong, dry IPA. It's part of the whole and not "willfully ignored".

Re:i like my coffee with caffeine (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154568)

there are no aesthetic qualities to discern in the flavor. its a bitter bean. in the rainbow of coffee flavors, its stilljusta bitterbean, and therefore without aesthetic attraction

maybe you can just admit you are a caffeine addict likeme, and your supposed aesthetic considerations are just a case of the emperor's new clothes

Or maybe you should admit that you don't like coffee, never have, but you started drinking it because you saw other people enjoying it and because you had no real taste for it, you guzzled it in such quantities that you became addicted to caffeine. You should probably switch to energy drinks; you will find the addition of sugar gives you more energy than caffeine alone. Meanwhile I will continue to enjoy my single cup of cappuccino of the day, lovingly handmade from my favorite coffee by me, just the way I like it.

Re:i like my coffee with caffeine (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154612)

like i said, emperor's new clothes

According to models? PSHAW. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154294)

I'd love to hear what those same models would say given the parameters for Mars or Venus. The only reason life exists on Earth is because of our large satellite that stabilizes our rotation.

Habitable (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154296)

I love how our definition of "habitable" is "kind of like Earth."

Re:Habitable (3, Interesting)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154384)

Given that there are very scientifically sound and obvious limitations on chemical processes involved in known or postulated life, that doesn't seem to outrageously presumptuous.

Re:Habitable (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154470)

habitable adjective/habitbl/Suitable or good enough to live in

In order for me to figure a planet suitable for me to live on, I would prefer something earth-like, as opposed to say, a bubbling cauldron of methan gas.

Re:Habitable (1, Informative)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154472)

Exactly. "Habitable" means I can live on it. Not some microbe or other life form.

Re:Habitable (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154484)

Well since we understand the chemistry of life we classify habitable as having the ability to support that Chemistry. Liquide water is the number one requirement. Since our planet is habitable then by sheer definition any other planet that is habitable will be more or less like earth. It would be illogical to classify a planet that is totally unlike earth as habitable.
Even if it turns out that a planet like Jupiter can support life it will then be kind of like Earth because like Earth it will be habitable.

Re:Habitable (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154634)

I love how our definition of "habitable" is "kind of like Earth."

That would be the generally accepted definition of habitable: capable of being lived in. There are many parts of this plant that are not habitable. Just because some type of life form might be able to live there, doesn't make it habitable. Those sulfur vents in the Pacific have life that has adapted to it, but is toxic to most creatures and definitely not habitable to human beings. The Antarctic is not considered habitable, even though we have people living there doing research, because those people cannot sustain their existence from the resources found there. Likewise, most desert islands are not habitable because, even though one could survive there for a short period of time, they lack the resources to actually live there (adequate fresh water, dietary needs, etc.).

The definition of habitable implies that living there is sustainable, not just survivable for a short period of time. The only place in the universe we know that to be true, at least for us, is Earth, so for any place else in the universe to be habitable, it will indeed need to be "kind of like Earth." (At least habitable from our perspective).

When do we start sending Seed ships? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154312)

Time to get off this planet and move to a new one. It's only 20 lightyears away.

Ahem ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154406)

"We have discovered a Class M planet!" - Picard

this planet may need to last until 2025? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154440)

how many 1000 babys going up in smoke again today? how many 1000's of just folks to be killed or displaced again today? hard to put $$ on that. the cost of constant deception, to our spirit? paying to have ourselves constantly spied on & lied to by freaky self chosen neogod depopulationers? the biblically styled fatal distraction holycost is all encompassing, & never ends while we're still alive, unless we cut them/ourselves off at the wmd. good luck with that, as it's not even a topic anywhere we get to see, although in real life it's happening everywhere as our walking dead weapons peddlers are being uncontracted. you can call this weather if it makes you feel any better. no? read the teepeeleaks etchings.

so, once one lie is 'infactated', the rest becomes just more errant fatal history.

disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy with after all?

  you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.

wouldn't this be a great time to investigate the genuine native elders social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.

who has all the weapons? who is doing MOST of the damage? what are the motives? are our intentions & will as the ones who are supposed to be being represented honestly & accurately, being met? we have no reference to there being ANY public approval for the current mayhem & madness pr firm regime style self chosen neogod rulership we've allowed to develop around us, so we wouldn't have to stop having fun, & doing things that have nothing to do with having to defend from the smoke&mirrors domestic frenetics, of the unproven genocides. rockets exploding in syria fired from Libya? yikes?

  the zeus weather weapon is still being used indiscriminately against the population, our rulers' minions are fleeing under fire.

the whore of babylon has been rescued by the native elders. she has the papers of challenge authored by the hymenical council, & is cooperating wholeheartedly with the disarmament mandate.
disarm. thank you.

censorship, or convenience?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is bogus, you are right moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID,
which are always changing, you butthead

depressing: first of a 1000 known planets (3, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154488)

It should get better. The Doppler planets and early Kepler results are biased toward extreme planets. By 3rd year Kepler should be seeing 1 A.U. planets.

K-PAX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154510)

I think this is the planet prot talked about, and it's name is K-PAX !

For my Karma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154534)

The link is slashdotted already. Anyway, the _real_ info is here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/17/blighty_exoplanet/

Ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154560)

This article proudly brought to you by Starbucks.

Slashdotted (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154604)

Slashdotted already... man, the article has been up like what, thirty minutes?

Re:Slashdotted (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154746)

Yeah seriously! And as AC posted, they Australia f'd up, they missed out on a golden "Hello, World!" opportunity!

I finally got in an after reading TFA, it doesn't seem like it's a place we'd want to inhabit @ 2 x earth's gravity. We're gonna have to start working out build up strength in our legs and lose some serious weight! Unless we get those exoskeletons working right!

Less radiation means less evolved life, right? (1)

kungfugleek (1314949) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154618)

FTA: "It receives less than a third of the solar radiation Earth gets"

IANAScientist, but does that usually mean that genetic mutations, and most "big steps" in evolution, would be stunted?

Re:Less radiation means less evolved life, right? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154822)

Not necessarily. You will need a certain mutation rate to keep up any evolutionary process - but that doesn't necessarily have to be fueled by solar radiation. Background radioactivity from the rocks would do as well. Besides, it's only a loss of 70something %, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of mutation on that fact in any way.

Re:Less radiation means less evolved life, right? (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154852)

Maybe. It's entirely possible that whatever evolves there, if it even uses anything similar to DNA, will not have as robust of a damage repair mechanism as life on Earth. We really don't know. It's basically impossible to speculate at what "life" might be like on other planets, because we have literally only one example to go on at the moment.

Models & Reality (1)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154718)

I want to observe that 'their models suggest that the planet is habitable'. Don't get all excited until their models are validated, verified, and well-tested. Until then, it could indeed turn out to just be that trick of curved space-time that brought in a few funny photons in the right place.

B ship (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154772)

So, when does the B ship leave?

arxiv link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154854)

Cannot reach the site, but it is probably based on this work, posted about 1.5 weeks ago:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.1031v1.pdf

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?