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!

How to Peep the Perseid's Peak

timothy posted 1 year,21 days | from the oh-come-on-people dept.

Space 58

The Christian Science Monitor has a short piece with some tips on watching the Perseid meteor showers, which will peak over the next few evenings. MSNBC also has a good suggestion if you'd like to watch the show but can't because of weather: watch online, courtesy of NASA and the Slooh space telescope. I hope the skies will cooperate so I can see them from darkest Maine.

cancel ×


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

Showers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533219)

I love astronomy, but the only exciting celestial events I've seen are eclipses and ISS flyovers. Meteor showers and comets have always been disappointing :(

Sucks to be jaded.

Re:Showers (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533673)

Well, I don't often see good meteors, especially not when I'm looking for them. But over here in eastern Virginia, I've seen two very large fireballs. One was, maybe, December about five years back. The other was two days ago. It was fast--about two, three seconds to cover 90Â of visual field, and largish, and yellowish, heading east to west.

The one five years ago was green.

Re:Showers (2)

hyperdell (722892) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534049)

Get out there, don't be so Jaded.

Re:Showers (1)

davester666 (731373) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534133)


Watching the first couple hundred galaxies form, that was pretty cool. Since then, the odd black hole vacuuming various things away...supernovas...

But recently, it's been same old, same old...

Re:Showers (2)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534281)

I used to love back yard astronomy. I especially loved meteor showers the Leonids of 01 were fantastic beyond belief.
But due to urban development; new street lights and people with blasting lights on their property, I can only see the brightest stars. So I kinda lost interest.

Re:Showers (1)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534637)

Oh the 2001 Leonid shower was the best meteor shower I have ever seen. Fireballs streaking across everywhere. An many of them made that crackling/hissing sound when they flew across the sky. It is still unknown how the meteors make that sound and how the noise is able to propagate faster than the speed of sound. (You shouldn't be able to have simultaneous sound with a meteor, since they are +40 km away.). But the crackling sound was widely reported with the 2001 Leonid shower, and AFAIK, scientist have at least actually recorded "noisy" meteors now.

Light pollution is just a sad phenomenon. I have to use a binocular just to see stellar constellations that are easily visible to the naked eye in just semi dark places. I haven't seen the milky way in over a decade.

Re:Showers (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | 1 year,20 days | (#44537263)

scientist have at least actually recorded "noisy" meteors now.
Really? I'll have to research that, I always wondered how that could possibly happen.
I did see a few this morning, Im going to try again monday morning with my DSLR and take some long exposures.

Re:Showers (1)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,20 days | (#44537377)

This Wikipedia article (footnote 39) claims that a controlled recording in Mongolia showed the connection between sound and meteor falls: []

There are several suggestions what causes the the simultaneous sound, but AFAIK, no one has really made a solid case with measurements to back up their theory.

Re:Showers (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | 1 year,19 days | (#44546235)

There are several suggestions what causes the the simultaneous sound, but AFAIK, no one has really made a solid case with measurements to back up their theory.

Hmmm, interesting ; an area of astronomical science with which I was previously unfamiliar.

The cited scientist seems to still be working in astronomy, if not particularly on this topic : research summary [] , "electrophonic" sounds [] , and Mongolia 1998 [] . Doesn't seem to have updated on this since 2006.

It does sound interesting, but I can't say that I'm terribly convinced by the "radio wave interaction" hypothesis. given that a typical meteoroid is a millimetre or so across (radius 0.05mm ; take density as 2700kg./m^3 and 7.5 km/s velocity^3) has an energy of around 300 J.

Is that a lot of radio energy? It doesn't seem a lot to be distributed over hundreds of square km. It's obviously easily detectable by radio systems (people have been counting meteors by radio for the thick end of a century), but producing sonic effects in untuned, non-conductive "receivers" ... that strains my credulity.

There's also a question on the efficiency of conversion of KE to radio broadcast energy.

The "Global Electrophonic Fireball Survey" [] seems to have been quiet since 2002.

Well, that's science for you ; anyone who is sufficiently motivated to take up the baton of research will, I'm sure, be able to follow on. Until the black helicopters drag you away to Area 51 for interrogation and re-programming. (I'm sure there are conspiracy theories lurking about in the woodwork.)

FUD ALERT! (4, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533235)

A highly reliable source [] claims that the Perseid meteor showers are not so much meteor showers in the normal sense...


noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533237)

what does peep mean?


Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533251)

what does peep mean?

Jeepers creepers, you peep* with your peepers!

* Not to be confused with Peeps, trademark of Just Born, Inc.

a waste. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533249)

Christian Science Monitor? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Are there no other reliable sources for accurate science news? The CSM is the last place that anyone should be heading for news.

Re: a waste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533271)

Checkout the Anonymous Coward Times, they have a great opinion section.

Re:a waste. (5, Informative)

sageres (561626) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533281)

CSM has many surprisingly informative and detailed news and opinions on various subject matters from many perspective views. No religious dogma is involved, they are extremely neutral. It is probably one of the very few sources of information I find trustworthy on the Internet.

Re:a waste. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533391)

I'm sure there is much disinformation out there about the Perseid meteor showers. It wouldn't make any sense to link to such disreputable sites as Much better to link to an organization with such rotten roots. /sarcasm

Re:a waste. (2)

sconeu (64226) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533653)

I'd mod you up if I had mod point. Of all the US-based MSM, IMHO, the CSM tends to be the most neutral, and have the most unslanted analysis. Even most of their editorial content is secular.

Re:a waste. (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | 1 year,21 days | (#44535981)

I have mod points, but prefer to agree with you in comment form. The CSM, regardless of its origins, is a widely respected newspaper. Anyone expecting to find religious fluff in articles would be disappointed. Now here's a religious nut job witch burning newspaper:!_(newspaper) []

I used to get this thing stuffed through my letterbox, and I agree completely with Alive! being described as "[the] equivalent of the paramilitary wing of the Catholic Church" This rag makes the Daily Mail appear middle-of-the-road by comparison.

Re:a waste. (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533567)

The CSM is the last place that anyone should be heading for news.

Yes, let's toss out the teachings of Roger Bacon, advocate of the scientific method, and his fellow Franciscan monk, William of Occam. The astronomers Kepler, Galileo, and Coppernicus would have to go; mathematicians John Napier, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, and Leonhard Euler too. If they go, then physicists like Faraday, Marconi, Babbage, Volta, Maxwell, Joule, Hertz, Kelvin, and Planck will have to as well. Ditto folks like Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, and George Washington Carver, Freeman Dyson, Kurt Godel, and Donald Knuth,

Gee. The world would be a poorer place if we ignored the scientific contributions of these people just because you have a problem with their religious beliefs.

Re:a waste. (1)

deetoy (1576145) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533649)

Ditto to this. If critics were to equally discredit every group based on the worst behaviour of members of that group then every reputable research organisation would be destroyed. The linked article provides concise reporting of scientific information with no editorial opinion. I'm more than a little tired of people openly attacking an organisation (be it Christian/Muslim/other religion) when the basis of their attacks have nothing to do with the information at hand. It might help to realise the birth of what we now know as the scientific method and universities were founded by Christian groups. Sure there were periods that went up and down that can be used as negative examples. Sadly there have always been and will always be power seeking bigots who take control using whatever means available. Attack the principal, and you may find the principal you are attacking is not part of the faith you think you are attacking.

Re:a waste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533727)

You want a shirt. You can buy the same exact shirt from two different manufacturers for the same exact price. The manufacturers are located in the same town and the employees of one are the spouses of the employees of the other. As far as you can tell, the manufacturers are identical in every respect, except one. One funds a religious group you don't agree with. The other doesn't. Which shirt do you buy?

Re:a waste. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533775)

Either one that is most convenient when go to I buy a shirt. I'm not such a bigot that I would refuse to do business with someone because of their religion. It's also the reason why boycotts don't work, even if you stirr the pot enough that people become frightened of you and claim they won't buy from Microsoft or big media (RIAA and MPAA), they go ahead and do it.

Re: a waste. (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534003)

And even in more extreme cases, the boycott causes the Barbara Streisand effect that only brings more business and success to the one being boycotted. We saw this with Chick-fil-a, where a tragic case of bigotry ended up winding up the conserva-fundies into a pro-business rights fervor, turning the incident into an unintentionally genius marketing move, while further exacerbating gender preference tensions.

Sorry for the off topic rant.

As for the meteor shower, I've caught two this past year or so, and both have been spectacular. The last one, I'd never seen so many stars in my life, even compared to growing up in the Florida Panhandle where civilization is scarce. About 20 minutes in, a small herd of deer moved in to watch the show with us (my girlfriend and I). With such magic, definitely something I will attempt again e
Tomorrow, weather permitting.

Re:a waste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533847)

If we follow the logic of the original poster, we go shirtless.

Re: a waste. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44534911)

i don't buy t-shirts in Tiajuana anymore for exactly that reason.

Re:a waste. (3, Interesting)

quantaman (517394) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533975)

Ditto to this.
If critics were to equally discredit every group based on the worst behaviour of members of that group then every reputable research organisation would be destroyed.

The issue here isn't the people in the group, but the actual beliefs that define the group.

The defining belief of Christian Science involves avoiding modern medicine in favour of healing through prayer. This is a belief that kills people.

As a responsible and humane person I believe it's my duty to criticize them.

Re:a waste. (1)

isorox (205688) | 1 year,20 days | (#44537647)

Ditto to this.
If critics were to equally discredit every group based on the worst behaviour of members of that group then every reputable research organisation would be destroyed.

The issue here isn't the people in the group, but the actual beliefs that define the group.

The defining belief of Christian Science involves avoiding modern medicine in favour of healing through prayer. This is a belief that kills people.

As a responsible and humane person I believe it's my duty to criticize them.

As someone worried about growing population, I don't see a problem. Survival of the fittest.

Re:a waste. (2, Interesting)

quantaman (517394) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533969)

The problem with the CSM isn't that the news is suspect, it's that it advertises (though name and association) a fairly harmful religion.

Christian Science is not only into faith healing, but they actually encourage their members to avoid modern medicine (including vaccines). For all that people were talking about boycotting Ender's Game because of Orson Scott Card's beliefs against homosexuals. I'm doubtful that Christian Science is any more accepting of gays, but even if they are Christian Science is still killing members through their health practices. And while the effects of an Ender's Game boycott on gay rights are fairy dubious, the success of the Christian Science Monitor directly benefits Christian Science.

Their contributions to journalism are fine and I'm not sure I'd actually boycott them, but just because the paper is good doesn't mean they don't cause harm in other ways.

Re:a waste. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44534039)

None of those people were Christian Scientists... They may have been Christians who were scientists, but Christian Science is something quite different.

Re:a waste. (1)

washort (6555) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534239)

Please note that "Christian Science" is not a Christian sect and as others have noted it's not particularly scientific. As [] points out, "Christian Scientists" are devotees of Mary Baker Eddy and follow a rationalist-idealist philosophy that both opposes and is opposed by Christians -- it certainly would not be recognized by most of the names on your list. That said, I would hope that everyone on Slashdot can evaluate the merits of an article even if one disagrees with some opinion or position held by the organization or person posting it.

Re:a waste. (2)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534299)

Christian Science Monitor? Isn't that an oxymoron?


Re:a waste. (1)

vandamme (1893204) | 1 year,21 days | (#44536655)

Like "Democratic People's Republic of ___________"

Re:a waste. (1)

isorox (205688) | 1 year,20 days | (#44537651)

Like "Democratic People's Republic of ___________"


Please stop supporting the CSM (3, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533349)

Please do not link to the CSM or support them - their parent organization (which is where the profits from the CSM go) spreads belief that if you get sick, it's punishment for not being a good enough Christian Scientist/follower of god, and that you should not seek medical treatment. That's some seriously fucked up shit.

If you're a dimwitted adult and you want to deny yourself medical care, fine - but the children of Christian Scientists don't have a choice, and this cult endangers the lives of tens of thousands of children who depend upon their guardians for sound medical care decisions.

Mary Baker Eddy was relentlessly criticized (rightly so) by the press of her time for being absolutely batshit crazy (which she was. Someone should've tattooed "correlation is not causation" backwards on her forehead.) She got all huffy about being called a wacko all the time, and started the CSM - specifically to have a newspaper that wouldn't criticize her and would present her with a worldview she found acceptable.

Yes, they do good reporting. It doesn't matter - the money still supports a cult.

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533397)

If is broadcasting it why not watch it there []

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533407)

If is broadcasting it why not watch it there []

If you go to the " Go the the Marshall Space Flight Center Ustream channel" link there's (obnoxious) music being played; had a lot
of links opened and took awhile to find where it was coming from.

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (2)

mmell (832646) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533521)

You seem as nervous as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (2)

sageres (561626) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533599)

So what? Yes it is owned by a church, but how many good media newspapers owned by people whose causes we protest? Fox -- Newscorp. Check out who owns NBC -- that's Comcast. That is: Vanguard group, State Street, Dodge and Cox, Wellington, Microsoft And who owns CBS? Waddel & Reed, Vanguard (again), State Street, Capital World ABC? That's Disney.... That is:Vanguard Group. State Street Corp. FMR, LLC, T Roe Price. Vanguard Group and State Street are the primary ones that own most media. Newscorp is the smallest. Most of the newspapers are owned by one conglomerate or another. CSM is one of the very few independent media publications. So what it is owned by a religious institution? Check out how good their reporting is. How many times they won Pulitzer Price. You ever read any of their articles? Opinions? Their reporting style? Done any research besides on who they are owned by? Actually dude, you are just ignorant. And ignorant people like you should be ignored.

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533715) many good media newspapers owned by people whose causes we protest?

None. You seem to think there are good media newspapers.

CSM is one of the very few independent media publications.

"Independent" means what exactly? They're beholden to their owners, just like every other publication. Outside of the mainstream media? The mainstream media sucks at science anyway, so I'm not sure what you're point is.

There are all kinds of independent organizations doing quality science reporting (some of which fund actual science, not just science which supports a religious point of view).

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (4, Interesting)

nbauman (624611) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533929)

I must defend the CSM. I knew their technology reporter, and he turned me on to Linux.

I can't speak with authority on the Christian Science religion, but I have met a lot of hospital medical ethicists who deal with them and other religions that discourage medicine. There were some big problems with Christian Science up to 1993, when they lost a big lawsuit [] Since that time they seem to be moving away from their anti-medicine position significantly. I don't know what their vaccination practices are now, but Mary Baker Eddy said that they should get vaccinated if that's the law. These problems of children (and adults) dying for lack of medical care come up now more often with the Evangelical churches that interpret the Bible "literally", and with "naturalistic" practitioners.

The CSM is an excellent newspaper. They won 7 Pulitzer prizes. I read a book about newspapers in New England, and one chapter was about the CSM. They (like most other journalists) gave the CSM a great evaluation, although they pointed out the ironic failing of a newspaper based in Boston, one of the centers of academic medicine, that didn't cover medicine. OTOH, they said that the CSM was edited with a philosophy of trying to contribute something positive to the world, which sounds hokey but if you look at their coverage they were really doing it. They lost money. They refused to take cigarette or liquor ads. They never covered crime, except for a broad view as a social problem that we should try to do something about. Most of their circulation was by mail, which arrived a day or two later, so they eschewed deadline coverage of the day's news and instead wrote more analytical, fact-checked, thoughtful stories.

They were actually quite liberal, and during the times when the war hawks were beating the drums of war, the CSM took one step back, reported the objective facts, and treated our "enemies" like human beings, when even papers like the New York Times were doing their job as stenographers to the military-industrial complex. Foreign correspondents in war zones are awfully expensive, but it was worth it. They also had local freelancers, who knew the people and understood the culture. For example, the CSM had some of the earliest coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which they actually talked to people on both sides and treated their ideas seriously. In national coverage, they don't treat politics like a spectator sport where the Democrats and Republicans are supposed to score points against each other. They realize that we have problems to solve.

At one time I read the CSM more or less regularly, and it was pretty good. Like the Wall Street Journal, they would have one crazy editorial every day, and the rest of the paper was independent, rock-solid objective reporting. You don't find too many newspapers like that, now or ever.

They were missing the cynicism in most of the media that "things are corrupt and we can't do anything about it so let's go along with it and make smug jokes about it." See for yourself []

Every religion is crazy in some way, and I don't understand how intelligent people can fall for them, but the fact is that a lot of people, including some of my friends, follow religions and do good things. The Catholics are crazy (and hypocritical) about sex, abortion and even contraceptives, but they run hospitals and bring lawsuits to help the homeless. The evangelical Christians believe in creationism, but Forest Mimms is the best electronic engineer I ever saw. The Jews are acting like Nazis towards the Palestinians, but then there's Noam Chomsky and the rest fighting for social justice. The Scientologists I don't have to tell you about, but a bunch of Scientologists were running Earthlink, which was one of the best ISPs at one time. The Mormons invented WordPerfect and have all these great online genealogies.

Most of the big businesses in this country made their money either through war or crime. If I were to insist on being untouched by corruption, I couldn't hold a job to earn money or buy anything if I did have money.

I can see some circumstances where a boycott would make sense, or where a company was so repulsive that I would feel too disgusted to do business with them. But good, reliable information is pretty hard to find. Rupert Murdoch is disgusting but I still read the Wall Street Journal. Christian Science has never descended to Murdoch's cynical depths. Their anti-medicine history is really terrible, but the worst has gone and their newspaper is pretty far removed from that craziness. In a world of lesser evils the CSM is definitely one of the lesser evils.

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (1)

vandamme (1893204) | 1 year,21 days | (#44536715)

You probably have no idea what the Catholic church really teaches about sex, abortion, and contraceptives, and that's probably why you conclude they are crazy and hypocritical. Your average Catholic usually has no idea either.

You could read the "Theology of the Body" series by Pope JP2, but here's a very short intro. []

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (1)

nbauman (624611) | 1 year,20 days | (#44538227)

You probably have no idea what the Catholic church really teaches about sex, abortion, and contraceptives, and that's probably why you conclude they are crazy and hypocritical.

I lived with Catholic roomates all through college, and I had four Catholic girlfriends. My Jesuit roommates sent me to the library to read Thomas Aquinis. I went to mass. I marched in anti-war demonstrations with Catholics. I worked with Catholic lawyers who were suing the city to force them to provide housing for the homeless. And (at the recommendation of a Catholic right-to-life activist), I read Roe vs. Wade, which went through all the arguments, including the Catholic arguments, in great detail.

I also know that there are a lot of Catholics, and they don't all agree with each other.

So your link didn't tell me anything I don't know.

I can understand how somebody could oppose abortion. They don't interpret Leveticus the way other people do.

I can understand the "whole cloth" argument against abortion, unjust war (like the one we had in Iraq), and the death penalty, taken together. They're more convincing when they provide welfare for women who do have unintended children (and less convincing when they oppose welfare). I heard Mary Jo Bane explain why she resigned from the White House in response to Clinton's "welfare reform."

But when the Catholic hierarchy rules out contraception, they're choosing a medieval theological construction over the reality of life today. The Billings method only works for some women, and isn't reliable even for them. (I've talked to gynecologists about that and read the medical literature.) The reality is that unmarried people, especially teenagers, will have sex. Having an unplanned child during college (or high school) can take blow your chance to get a degree. A lot of women start a relationship with a guy, find out that he's got problems, and drop him. If they have a child together, she'll never get him out of her life. It's not "open to life." It's anti-sex.

Contraception is where the Catholics pass the boundary into craziness.

They hold people up to an impossible standard of chastity. It took me a while to figure out that Catholics just ignore those teachings. And then later on we found out that Catholic priests themselves were having sex with their parishoners, including young children. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the sex scandals destroyed all their credibility.

The whole Catholic Church doctrine on sex is fucked up, and causes Catholics a lot of suffering, to the extent that they try to follow it. One striking thing that I've seen repeatedly is that a girl will be brought up in a strict Catholic upbringing, fall for the chastity line, and then, the first time she's away from home, she'll break up with her first boyfriend and start sleeping with everybody. I've seen statistics that Catholics were more likely to have abortions. And the Catholic guys went to prostitutes. Herpes is forever.

In conclusion (as my Jesuit roommates taught me to say), a lot of religions do some good things, even though they're crazy in some ways, and also do some harm in other ways. The Catholic Church is the best example I could think of. If only they got rid of that obsession with sex they could do a lot more good.

P.S. My father went to Fordham.

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44539433)

Wow, the /. oddity, a well-rounded poster!

How dare you Sir, bring your well informed and moderate opinions here and foist them upon those who can see the world only in black and white and post only emotionally based drivel? There are shallow minds and fragile egos that you threaten to expand here.

For shame Sir. "For shame", I say. ;)

Re:Please stop supporting the CSM (1)

DirtyLiar (796951) | 1 year,20 days | (#44539351)

I'll get my information wherever it is reliably honest, correct, and truthful reguardless of who or what is behind it.

You are free to apply any ideological litmis test you like before reading. Personally I'd be troubled by all the echoing, but whatever.

Of course, you DO realise, I hope, that your actions encourage them to NOT work to attract intelligent readers, and instead focus only on those who believe as they do. But since that would only bring reality closer to your vision of it, I suspect you wouldn't be bothered.

Idiots, the unintelligent, the ignorant, and the uninformed CANNOT be ignored. They must be faced, and shown how they are wrong. Not for their own good, not for your good, but for humanity as a whole. I was taught growing up that, "the truth will out". 50 years of experience informs me that that is whishful thinking. Arguing with an idiot my indeed be, in and of itself a worthless activity. That an idiot should come to wisdom is unlikely, though not impossible, BUT to ignore them is to give them credibility. "Silence is consent / assent", is a well known, and well acted on, bit of age old wisdom. That truism has saved many a person from jail or worse. And it's correct. Others, who are willing to be swayed either way are listening. And the like minded gather together. When someone hears something that makes them feel good, they WANT to believe it. In fact, science has shown that humans are simply inclined to believe what they hear first. And if what they hear first is rubbish that goes unchallenged, that is a bad thing for humanity.

Christian Science is NOT a reliable source (-1, Redundant)

The_Revelation (688580) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533513)

Sorry, Slashdot, but why did a story from CSM ever arrive here? In Australia, Christianity is a subversive religion with an agenda to create ridiculous laws that support their beliefs and to silence their critics. More over, they are a militant religion that discriminates against any one or any religion outside of its own. Unlike most of the other religions I have experienced, who choose to live along side one and other, Christianity serves as the one true fascist religion.

As a person who has had to live under religious persecution from the Christians for the first 18 years of my life, I think I can fairly safely say that they have no place in the Tech or science community, now or in the future.

Re: Christian Science is NOT a reliable source (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533555)


1.Âa person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Origin: 1590â"1600; Middle French

Re: Christian Science is NOT a reliable source (1)

sageres (561626) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533605)

What the word?

Re: Christian Science is NOT a reliable source (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533619)


Re:Christian Science is NOT a reliable source (1)

sumdumass (711423) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533721)

Maybe you should not transfer your daddy issues onto others.

The CSM is an alright media source and your perception of Christians is likely unique to you. I know plenty of christians and your exaggerations are unreal.

Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44533811)

Christian Science is quite distinct from Christianity, aside from the name.

Re:Actually... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533823)

I know that but the parent seems to think that anything christian- even if it is someone's first name, is bad therefore deserves persecution. I disagreed.

Re: Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44535025)

CS and RC's both believe Christ is God

Muslims believe in the same God as do the Jews, who just claim God likes them more.
.On a broader level, Taoists and Buddhists still believe in a supreme being or higher devine force. Even physicisists rely on"immutable" laws which, at a sufficiently complex level is indistinguishable from majic.
That leaves Slashdotters, who believe that no topic is small enough to split hairs over.

If you have an Android Device, use this app.... (5, Informative)

Eyeballs (64172) | 1 year,21 days | (#44533681)

It's call Mobile Observatory:

And right now it's telling me:
1. When the shower will be next above the horizon, and which direction that will be.
2. When the shower will reach it's peak, and which direction and how high above the horizon it will be.

So here's the app's blurb from Google Play:

You want to know if the next lunar eclipse is visible from your location or when the next bright comet is visible? You would like to be notified by your smart phone the next time, Jupiter and the Moon meet in the sky? You want to know what the blazing bright object in the evening sky is? You want to be always up-to-date which celestial events are visible from your location? Then this app is a must-have for you!
The app does not only include a live, zoomable sky map telling you what sky object you are looking at but provides you with loads of detailed extra information on stars, planets, deep sky objects, meteor showers, comets, asteroids, lunar and solar eclipses as well as detailed ephemeris of all included sky objects and an interactive top-down view of the Solar System. All that in just one app!
Main Features
- Zoomable sky map showing stars, planets, asteroids, and more (above and below the horizon)
- Interactive top-down view of the Solar System
- Live mode (point device on sky and get information on what you see)
- Calendar showing detailed descriptions of celestial events
- Push celestial events to your phone's calendar and set a reminder alarm
- Rise, set, and transit times for any object
- Position of any object in the sky (altitude and direction)
- Twilight times, length of day
- Bright Star Catalog (~9000 stars) with detailed information
- More than 400 000 additional stars from the PPM Star Catalog (Android 3.1 or higher required)
- 2500 selected NGC objects (galaxies, clusters, ...)
- Messier Catalog (110 objects) complete with images
- Caldwell Catalog (110 objects) complete with images
- Hidden Treasures Catalog (109 objects) complete with images
- Meteor streams (begin, maximum, hourly rate, ...)
- Lunar and solar eclipses information
- Lunar librations, ascending node, maximum declination
- Bright comets (automatically selected according to the date)
- Dwarf planets: The five known dwarf planets
- Minor planets: bright, near Earth, trans-Neptune (more than 10000 in the database)
- Update database online: download up-to-date orbital elements of comets and minor planets
- Moon phases, the apparent view of the sun and planets
- Current image of the Sun and sunspot number
- Automatically generated visibility report for any object
- Intuitive User Interface: quickly find what you are looking for
- Widget with rise & set times of the Sun and Moon
- Automatic location determination from the mobile network or GPS
- Select a location from a built-in database or online via Google Maps
- Choose any time and date
- Detailed ephemeris, visibility information of all objects
- Dates of conjunctions between any object with planets or the Moon
- 3D-view of the Moon and the planets
- Accurate calculations for dates between 1900 and 2100

Re:If you have an Android Device, use this app.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44534219)

Next time you link an app, please mention if it's a free or paid app...

Geez, $5?!


kenwd0elq (985465) | 1 year,21 days | (#44534265)

One major quibble. As the Earth travels in its path around the Sun, the line of sunrise is the "front", and the line of sunset is the "back". You'll see more and brighter meteors from 2AM to dawn than you will between sunset and midnight. So if your schedule permits, rather than staying up late, get up early to look for meteors.

When driving, bugs hit the front windshield quite often. But bugs hardly ever splatter themselves on the BACK window. Same principle.

The Perseid meteors are going at about 125,000 miles per hour, while the Earth is moving at about 66,000 MPH. You'll sometimes see meteors that will catch up from behind, but the bright ones will be head-on.

from my latitude (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | 1 year,21 days | (#44535079)

the lines from Perseus seem to be drawn differently.

Bad English (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,21 days | (#44535825)

How to Peep the Perseid's Peak

"Peep" is synonymous with "look," not "see," so this should be

How to Peep at the Perseid's Peak

Carry on.

"And there shall be a great wailing and gnashing.. (1)

DirtyLiar (796951) | 1 year,20 days | (#44539393)

Of teeth..."

Just saying.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>