×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

208 comments

Great Super Earths. (4, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37379882)

That is the last thing I want to hear. All full of Life forms that are use to gravity much greater then what we are use full. If they beat us to space they will land on earth being smarter and stronger then us. I like the Old Grays small stature and wimpy. Sure they may have massive mental powers but I can really whack them hard with a big stick.

Re:Great Super Earths. (2, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37379926)

I'm guessing that you're either being silly or haven't taken your medication, but since there are no stupid questions and lots of other people are probably wondering about this, the second link points out that the increase in gravity isn't all that much: "For example, a planet with 5 times Earth’s mass but twice the radius would have a surface gravity only 20% higher than Earth; if you weighed 150 pounds here you’d weigh 180 pounds there."

That being said, there's always the anthropic principle to consider. It's possible there's something about planets with gravity that differs more than a few percent from ours screws up chemical evolution. Not likely, but not yet possible to rule out.

This is all in ignorance of any knowledge of whether or not these planets are in the habitable zone (hey; I've got classes tomorrow, I don't have that much time to RTFA.)

Re:Great Super Earths. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380052)

You are missing the main rule of Science Fiction. Humans are always the best balanced species.
If Aliens are strong then us then we are smarter then them. If Aliens are smarter then us then we are stronger then they are. If they are both stronger and smarter then us then humans are more creative or adaptable.

That is why I kinda like the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Arthur Dent is so unremarkable that he is spending most of the time trying to stay out of everybody ways. And the rest of the human population got wiped out in no time.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380554)

"than". The word "than" is what you're looking for.

Re:Great Super Earths. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380670)

Can I just email everything to you so you can grammar-check it for me? It would save me a lot of time.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380954)

You are missing the main rule of Science Fiction. Humans are always the best balanced species. If Aliens are strong then us then we are smarter then them. If Aliens are smarter then us then we are stronger then they are. If they are both stronger and smarter then us then humans are more creative or adaptable.

That is why I kinda like the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Arthur Dent is so unremarkable that he is spending most of the time trying to stay out of everybody ways. And the rest of the human population got wiped out in no time.

David Brin's Uplift Series is similar in a non-comedic way. Biologically, we're nothing special, our level of technology is primitive, and we have very little political power. We are easily one of the weakest species in the galaxies.

About our only skill (outside of ecosystem recovery) is that we will combine technology in unusual ways, and that's not really due to any innate human skill, only that we weren't properly educated in the long tradition of galactic science and technology.

Re:Great Super Earths. (4, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380528)

... the increase in gravity isn't all that much: "For example, a planet with 5 times Earth’s mass but twice the radius ...

So, they're saying its kind of like the difference in average weight between shopping at Target vs Walmart? I guess thats OK then.

Re:Great Super Earths. (-1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380692)

if you weighed 150 pounds here youâ(TM)d weigh 180 pounds there.

Eeek! You are fat!
Ah well, you meant pounds? Not kilograms? Ah ... and you are male, no worries.
BTW: would you like to carry my camera and equipment?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

padraic2 (2432584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380770)

Eeek! You are fat! Ah well, you meant pounds? Not kilograms? Ah ... and you are male, no worries. BTW: would you like to carry my camera and equipment?

I usually take someone at their word when they bother to include units. Also, I've never met any men named Samantha, but there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380810)

if you weighed 150 pounds here youâ(TM)d weigh 180 pounds there.

Ah well, you meant pounds? Not kilograms?

Well, since he actually said "pounds", it's a safe assumption that he meant pounds.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380898)

I'm not even sure where to start with this one. I... guess I'd probably recommend working on your sense of humour before you worry about brushing up on your English comprehension skills.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

idji (984038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380814)

You are right the the increase of surface gravity is only 25% for a planet 5 times Earth's weight and twice it's radius, but it is not a place to support life....
The Earth's mean density=5.15 g/cm^3
Iron has a density =7.87 g/cm^3
The Earth's inner core of 1200 km is mostly iron with a density near 12 g/cm^3, so that tells you the type of pressure the iron is under.
density of Earth's layers [wikipedia.org]
Most rocks have a density < 3 g/cm^3
so I think "your" planet, which has a density of 3.219g/cm^3, has most of it's upper layers far LIGHTER than rock, and that is probably not a place life could form or grow, unless it is a water-world (what else is liquid or low density in the habitable zone?) with incredibly immense ocean depths.

Nooo! (1)

Latent Heat (558884) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380884)

"unless it is a water-world (what else is liquid or low density in the habitable zone?) with incredibly immense ocean depths" Um, the home world of Jar-Jar Binks?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380914)

I'm not an astrophysicist; it's not "my" planet. That was a direct quote from the second link in the summary. Why is everyone having trouble with that today?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37379998)

why will they come here if they have FTL travel? to steal our endless energy supply of incandescent light bulbs, coal power, internal combustion engines, and fission nuclear reactors?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

seekret (1552571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380070)

Maybe they just like war. For all we know they could be Klingons!

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380196)

Or Kzinti

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380102)

If they are super Aliens then we are probably meaty animals with soft bones that they can easily chew up.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380560)

If they are super Aliens then we are probably meaty animals with soft bones that they can easily chew up.

Any species capable of interstellar travel must, by definition, be a social species. It's not the type you technology you can achieve without cooperation. I personally believe that the concept of an alien species who would have no qualms about destroying another sentient species is science fiction, and nothing more.

Anyone capable of coming here would be much more interested in our cultures than in our meat. Earth has plenty of other animals we'd be happy to share with them at a table while talking about our art, our science, our philosophies, and hell, even our reality TV.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

domatic (1128127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380624)

You really don't know. Human meat could be a delicacy to some species. Not at all essential but we could be caviar to them.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380722)

Any species capable of interstellar travel must, by definition, be a social species. It's not the type you technology you can achieve without cooperation.

I suggest to read Larry Nievens Kzin Cycle to get cured from your illusions ... or play eve online.

As soon as there is no police most "humans" will do what they can do ... I saw the "you loot, we shoot" signs in the windows of the houses in the flood of New Orleans.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37381156)

I think this whole "we're lawless sociopaths at heart" line can be overplayed. Yes, there are riots and there are looting, but if humans were truly as sociopathic as some make out, law and order would be impossible. What I think most riots, for instance, demonstrate is not how lone wolf we can be, but quite the opposite, how immediate peer pressure can make even sensible people behave badly. In short, people tend follow the strongest personalities, and as often as strong personalities may be leading people to create public health care or build bridges to expand trade or whatever, they can also lead people to smash in windows, steal flat-screen TVs, assemble large armies to go smack some poor bastards on the head for their land/women/grain/whatever or even get them to organize death camps and march in millions of poor bastards who have somehow been identified as the "others" to their deaths.

We are very much a social species, for all the good AND evil that means. Our behaviors and social structures are more complex, but basically, watch a chimpanzee tribe's behavior, leaders controlling inferiors for the good of the tribe, and for their own good (ie. using the tribe to smack down or even kill competitors for the top spot), and you get an idea as to how socialization can be an enormous force for good and evil. Think about it, do you think chimps when they make war on an enemy tribe (the only other critter besides us on the planet who does such a thing), that they're exhibiting sociopathic tendencies, or in fact, exhibiting just how powerful social tribalism can be?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380776)

Any species capable of interstellar travel must, by definition, be a social species. It's not the type you technology you can achieve without cooperation. I personally believe that the concept of an alien species who would have no qualms about destroying another sentient species is science fiction, and nothing more.

So why didn't the same apply, mutatis mutandis, to the Europeans who came to the New World?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380862)

Any species capable of interstellar travel must, by definition, be a social species. It's not the type you technology you can achieve without cooperation. I personally believe that the concept of an alien species who would have no qualms about destroying another sentient species is science fiction, and nothing more.

I would say the one known sapient species we know of today provides a strong counterexample to your assertion.

Anyone capable of coming here would be much more interested in our cultures than in our meat. Earth has plenty of other animals we'd be happy to share with them at a table while talking about our art, our science, our philosophies, and hell, even our reality TV.

It is true, however, that any species capable of interstellar travel has no doubt developed much more efficient methods of producing meat, e.g. farming/animal husbandry. I seem to recall that's much lower on the tech tree than FTL drives.

Re:Great Super Earths. (3, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380226)

Maybe they'd conquer Earth to turn it into some sort of weird alien spa. "Take a relaxing trip to Terra 3! Bask in the warming rays of Terra's star. The lighter gravity will make you feel years younger. All of your needs will be catered to by Terran slaves. We don't even mind if you break a few. We've got billions more."

Re:Great Super Earths. (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380558)

Maybe they'd conquer Earth to turn it into some sort of weird alien spa. ... All of your needs will be catered to by Terran slaves. We don't even mind if you break a few. We've got billions more.

Multinational corporation CEO's are space aliens?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380998)

Multinational corporation CEO's are space aliens?

Almost exactly the premise behind the "Black hole Travel Agency" series of books, By Jack Mckinney

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

burning-toast (925667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380056)

We can only hope that their bodies had to spend more energy on supportive body mass and fibers than brain power. But if they are landing here then they made at least some of the qualifying grade for brains which is indeed scary. But think of the inverse!

I just can't imagine being the person to investigate the surface of a super earth if we could land on them (hypothetical of course). I just can't help but think there would be a risk of breaking a leg just by falling while walking or jumping. Never mind the blackout risk trying to do anything useful like climb a hill on a body with 4-5 times earth gravity. Humans do OK for a while with less gravity before our bodies have problems, but we are really pretty bad in an environment with more of it.

Re:Great Super Earths. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380348)

Exoskeletons FTW!

Anyway, not 4-5x the surface gravity -- that would mean (at the same density, which is not quite valid) 64-125x the planetary mass. 4-5x the mass is in the range of 1.5-2G.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380096)

why would they be smarter? i can buy the sudden increase in speed, and strength, but smarter?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380140)

The rockets required to achieve escape velocity are correspondingly harder to design?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380190)

That would be the prerequisite for landing on our planet. As opposed to the other way around...

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380574)

That would be the prerequisite for landing on our planet. As opposed to the other way around...

Talk like that, is going to predictably get the multicultural types all riled up about Columbus and conquistadors and all that.

Re:Great Super Earths. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380758)

no, but for mentioning that you might attract ridicule from people that can string together more than a few ol' brain cells.

i've always said that folks like you ought to stay away from 'book learning of the historical kind'. goes to show.

btw, you sound like the sort of person that the grays tend to contact when they visit these parts....if so then why don't you tell us all how smart you reckon they are? (you can skip the bit about the anal probes if you like).

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380206)

"More powerful the God 1 and God 2 combined"...

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380234)

Like the aliens from Galactica 1980?

Re:Great Super Earths. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380764)

Did you just admit to watching Galactica 1980? Does that qualify you for a Congressional Medal of Honor or a Purple Heart?

Re:Great Super Earths. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380682)

...being smarter and stronger then us.

How can you be sure they'll be smarter? Haven't you seen District 9? What if they just dump a class of workers on us?

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

Zephyn (415698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380772)

So does that make us Bizzaro Earth? It might explain a few things....

Re:Great Super Earths. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380792)

Depends. How's your goatee shaping up?

Well there's a reason for that (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380840)

We use gravitational lensing to find these planets. Smaller planets are harder to find. Less gravity, less lensing.

So it's not surprising to find the bigger stuff first. I'm sure there are plenty of other planets with wimpy earth like size and gravity waiting to be found.

Re:Great Super Earths. (1)

JulianDraak (1918564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380944)

It should be pointed out that a super earth is merely a planet within a certain mass range, and not necessarily a planet with the essentials for life.

That's no moon. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37379894)

It's a space station.

trantor? (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37379940)

Do any of them appear strangely, completely metallic?

Re:trantor? (0)

2names (531755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37379986)

Yes. Metallica bought their own planet. (not with the sales of St. Anger, mind you...)

Re:trantor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380076)

(not with the sales of St. Anger, mind you...)

In a truly representative statement of how horrific our collective taste in music is, that pile of shit went multiplatinum.

Threat (3, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37379974)

The problem is that if these planets do indeed harbour life, it could be at least as technologically advanced, if not more than us. This means that they pose a threat to our planet.

I say that we concentrate all our efforts into building space faring vehicles capable of travelling to these planets with the soul intent of destroying them. Before they destroy us.

If you find this too ridiculous then imagine Rick Perry saying it :)

Re:Threat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380008)

Imagine how much funding the republicans would vote to give to NASA if Rick Perry _did_ say it.

Re:Threat (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380060)

None. And keep that kind of stuff in Yahoo comments where it belongs.

Re:Threat (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380050)

We call those "Berserker Probes [wikipedia.org]"...

Pretty much the game-theory asshole's take on colonization via Von Neumman machines. The argument goes that, in an environment where diplomatic missives can only travel at the speed of light, and hypothetical relativistic kinetic-kill vehicles a few factors of ten slower, you have to do unto others before they do unto you...

Re:Threat (0)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380074)

most wars are fought for resources. afghanistan is no exception. there are $4 trillion in rare metals there.

any civilization with space travel will be able to mine all these resources from the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of space that has no life in it

Re:Threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380398)

Nice! I'm still wondering though, whether ore concentration will ever be high enough on planets without water. That should at least cause some potential for competition.

Re:Threat (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380620)

Since the majority of near-surface gold is now attributed to asteroid strikes, and rocks near the surface are mostly other stuff, it seems reasonable to conclude that there must be asteroids that are extremely enriched in such ores. Actually, mining asteroids would seem unnecessary - you'd really want a very early solar system in which you still had mostly accretion disk. You're then dealing with ultra-pure dust in a gigantic centrifuge. Most of the ores of interest should concentrate in bands that can easily be selected for.

Re:Threat (1)

seekret (1552571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380086)

I say we also develop sustainable space colonies in case they arrive here in the next few decades and obliterate our planet. It must be done, for survival!

Re:Threat (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380180)

Somehow, your "soul/sole" typo makes your comment even funnier.

Perry: "My fellow Americans, we must build space faring vehicles and faster than light engines to destroy alien life before they destroy us. God and Jesus told me we need to. Our souls depend on it!"

Of course, his R&D method of praying for divine FTL engine designs probably wouldn't work too quickly.

Re:Threat (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380584)

If you find this too ridiculous then imagine Rick Perry saying it :)

Didn't have the world "god" in it, seems unlikely.

Re:Threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380826)

once again rick sweeney's potentially planet-saving advice gets modded down into the tolet. this happens every time and peop'le do not learn. it seems like certain people would rather stick their foot in the sand and pretent that there is no threat. it just like how ppl thought that communism was gone after we beat it in world war 2. now these planets could be peace full but we don know for sure. so it seams like the rick sweeney approach (blow them all the hell up) is the only way. or else we might wake up and find ourself's ate by monster's

Can we put a stop to reatared head lines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380094)

Billions more await?

Did the submitter/editor think for a second how it sounds and what it means?

a) Billions of them are dying to be "discovered" by us humans?

b) If we know there a billion of them are waiting, by definition we also know they exist and we found them already. So how can they be "waiting"?

Re:Can we put a stop to reatared head lines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380426)

It's estimated there are 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy. If the trend of 40% of earth-like stars having at least one planet smaller than Saturn continues, there will very likely be billions of such planets. You dumb cunt.

Re:Can we put a stop to reatared head lines? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380724)

earth-like stars

Who's the dumb one again?

Re:Can we put a stop to reatared head lines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37381016)

Yeah, and they can't 'see' planets smaller than Saturn yet. Our solar system has eight planets which are the mass of Saturn or smaller. If only 1% of 200 billion stars have an average of 5 planets less than Saturn's mass, how many planets are there? Ten billion? Really?!

What's 40% of ten billion? I'm sure you can't possibly wrap your two brain cells around the proposition, but I assure you that it's quite a bit greater than 999,999,999.

Now, realize that about 7% of the planets in the galaxy are G class stars (much the same as ours). If any given G class star could only have one planet, or none at all, and that only 40% of them had a planet to call their own, there would be at about 14 billion planets running around out there in this great big galaxy of ours.

I'm a product of public education. What's your excuse?

I think this Earth is pretty darn super. (2)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380150)

Best one I've ever lived on, in fact.

Re:I think this Earth is pretty darn super. (1)

Chuckles08 (1277062) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380322)

No, no! [glances nervously towards the heavens...] It's not super! It's disgusting. A wasteland really. Move along now... Nothing to see... [further reflection...] Hey, wait a minute! Maybe our greedy oil-fueled societies are, in fact, a master plan by informed politicians - who are protecting us via a "nothing to support life here" policy...

Re:I think this Earth is pretty darn super. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380406)

Good for you.
It's the worst I've ever lived on.

Re:I think this Earth is pretty darn super. (2)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380506)

Oh come on, you're both just letting your biases get in the way.

This is a very typical earth; if there's anything unusual about it at all it's that it's average for earths in every respect.

Re:I think this Earth is pretty darn super. (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380820)

Weirdly it seems to be included in every single random sampling of earths, which might be skewing your averages.

Drake Equation (2)

fires100 (2459886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380152)

Has anyone been filling the terms to the drake equation as we narrow down the ranges for the various terms?

Re:Drake Equation" (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380402)

I had the same question. What I'm curious to know is how random their sample of sun-like stars is. If they cherry picked them, their results can't be used for estimating Drake parameters. (But who could blame them their first couple times out?)

Note 3 of the article:
"the planets found by HARPS are around stars close to the Sun. This makes them better targets for many kinds of additional follow-up observations"

Note 8 is also relevant:
"With large numbers of measurements, the detection sensitivity of HARPS is close to 100% for super-Earths of ten Earth-masses with orbital periods of up to one year, and even when considering planets of three Earth masses with a one-year orbit, the probability of detection remains close to 20%."

So, 'back of the envelope' guestimating, their results may only apply to stars close to the sun and represent a lower bound to whatever frequencies they calculate. I don't think anyone knows, yet, whether stars near earth are atypical of the galaxy at large or not.

about HARPS (4, Informative)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380176)

This is likely to be informative:

"HARPS is the ESO facility for the measurement of radial velocities with the highest accuracy currently available. It is fibre-fed by the Cassegrain focus of the 3.6m telescope in La Silla.
The instrument is built to obtain very high long term radial velocity accuracy (on the order of 1 m/s). To achieve this goal, HARPS is designed as an echelle spectrograph fed by a pair of fibres and optimised for mechanical stability. It is contained in a vacuum vessel to avoid spectral drift due to temperature and air pressure variations. One of the two fibres collects the star light, while the second is used to either record simultaneously a Th-Ar reference spectrum or the background sky. The two HARPS fibres (object + sky or Th-Ar) have an aperture on the sky of 1"; this produces a resolving power of 115,000 in the spectrograph. Both fibres are equipped with an image scrambler to provide a uniform spectrograph pupil illumination, independent of pointing decentering."

1.) It's an optical telescope.
2.) It's on the face of the earth (I find this amazing.)

I got the impression from Frank Drake's book that astronomy was 'best done' by satellite radio telescope.

Re:about HARPS (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380230)

Forgot the reference: http://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/lasilla/instruments/harps/overview.html

Re:about HARPS (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37381040)

I got the impression from Frank Drake's book that astronomy was 'best done' by satellite radio telescope.

Well there's two things:
1) Some things just aren't observable from earth, certain parts of the spectrum don't reach us.
2) Atmospheric distortion, like you see the air shimmer in the desert on a very warm day.

The first one is still real. The second one we now have huge computers that compensate for it, it's by no means easy yet still easier than blasting massive yet incredibly precise and fragile telescopes into space. And we still place our observatories high in the mountains to avoid as much as possible. Or the tl;dr version: We have use for both.

Super Earths! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380192)

I for one, welcome our eaty, meaty, bone chewing OverLords!

Less mass than Saturn (0)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380386)

Yes, but how many have less gas than Uranus?

(sorry)

Re:Less mass than Saturn (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380606)

Yes, but how many have less gas than Uranus?
  (sorry)

We'll send a goat, we'll let the "goatse" if that is correct or not...

Another step closer to proving there is no God (1)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380412)

Once we can be sure there is no one watching... once we can be sure no one is watching...

Well... you'll see.

P.S.

In Soviet Russia.. exoplanet find YOU!

Re:Another step closer to proving there is no God (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380524)

...and when do we get there? And why haven't we gotten there yet? I mean, Duke Nukem Forever is out. Didn't we miss a lot of deadlines when it finally released?

GO)AT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380414)

FrreBSD core teamH way. It used to be

Re:GO)AT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37380842)

I initially misread the article subject as "50 New Exploits Found, Billions More Await".

Off to read the article (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#37380838)

There is one think I really wish I'd see in the summary: what stage of "discovery" are we at. Is this the first pass of the raw data? Or is this confirmation of unconfirmed data. We've seen some pretty high-profile new planets evaporate into thin air^h^h^h^h ether.

At the same time, I am still excited about this explosion of new discovery. If, somehow, we can continue to not self-destruct for another 50 years or so, we will see a cataloging of our galaxy that was only imagined in science fiction

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...