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!

Exoplanet Count Peaks 1,000

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the drake-equation-still-looks-intimidating dept.

Space 116

astroengine writes "The first 1,000 exoplanets to be confirmed have been added to the Europe-based Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. For the last few weeks, astronomers (and the science media) have been waiting with bated breath as the confirmed exoplanet count tallied closer and closer to the 1,000 mark. Then, with the help of the Super Wide Angle Search for Planets (SuperWASP) collaboration, the number jumped from 999 to 1,010 overnight. All of the 11 worlds are classified as 'hot-Jupiters' with orbital periods between 1 day and 9 days."

cancel ×

116 comments

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

Hmm... (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45209949)

More like 1000 e19 when the survey is over maybe?

Re:Hmm... (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45211553)

No, because it'll be a cold, cold day in hell before I'll admit Rigel-7!

Flags (4, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#45209959)

And we still haven't planted a flag in every planes in our solar system.

I find it sad that humanity stopped expanding as soon as it became a bit hard. And I don't think it's relatively harder now for us to expand than it was a thousand years ago.

Re:Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45209989)

And we still haven't planted a flag in every planes in our solar system.

What you just wrote seems inappropriate.

I find it sad that humanity stopped expanding as soon as it became a bit hard. And I don't think it's relatively harder now for us to expand than it was a thousand years ago.

It didn't stop, it just got harder to spot for want to be watchers...

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210089)

If you measure expansion as the average of [dist(p1,p2)]^2 over every pair of people on Earth, then you need some pretty extreme migration to remote areas of the world to match just 1 person on the moon.

Re:Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210123)

smartass

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210193)

dumbass

Re:Flags (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210397)

Dumas.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210925)

Shawshank?

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212433)

Dufresne!

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210013)

You are most welcome to go plant your flag on Jupiter.

Re:Flags (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210035)

Hey AC, are you toying with me?

I have access to Dice logs, just so you know in advance.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4366737&cid=45209721 [slashdot.org]

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210423)

No, different AC... you're just paranoid. Good luck with that.

Re:Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210445)

Then, as far as I am concerned, you may be a different AC than the 2 different ACs I was replying to. To make things clearer, that would be 3 different ACs total ;-)

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210711)

But then how would that AC know that the first two ACs are not the same?

Of course, if you really had access to the Dice logs, you could figure out for sure. So I call bullshit on that.

Re:Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210761)

Poor ACs, please read my sig.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210951)

If you're so bloody brilliant, you would know that you have to log in to see signatures.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210993)

As someone who refuses to make an account, I never once knew slashdot had signatures. I'm glad I don't get to see them. I very rarely agree with signatures in threads/forums/online posts. It's annoying, it takes up space, and it doesn't add to the conversation.

Proud to be AC.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211101)

Yea, I was gonna make an account a couple years back, but then I started to notice the continual decline. It's kind of addicting, though, like watching a train wreck, so I lurk.

And ACs seem to get modded up much more than they used to. Don't know why, though. ...first post?

Re: Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210515)

Why are you bragging about having access to Dice's logs?

The bathrooms won't clean themselves.

Re: Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210691)

Didn't you read my sig?

Re: Flags (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45210765)

We have nothing better to do than read your sig. But your sig doesn't show when someone is replying to your post. Next time you're going through the logs, you might want to fix that.

Re: Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210811)

I didn't want to mix topics, but next time I talk to that E.S. bastard, I am sure he could do something for me to keep my sig relevant.

Re: Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210829)

Also, can ACs even see your sig? It's default off for people not logged in, no?

Re: Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211755)

Can't see it without logging in. Why, what does it say?

Re:Flags (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45210053)

Nor are we likely to, in the name of Progress, since that really means keeping everyone on the plantation instead of getting off the planet.
There just aren't any votes to buy off of the Earth, and where is the political power in that?

Re:Flags (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210129)

mod up please

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211803)

Ok, Mr. I have access to slashdot logs but don't know how moderation works, I'll help you out. If you have mod points, you get to decide what to moderate up and down. If you don't, don't waste everyone's time posting shit like "mod up please". They know what to do. Now the people with mod points have to waste a few moderating your useless post down. BTW, low scoring posts will not help you get mod points in the future. In conclusion, STFU.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210055)

Try to plant a flag on gaseous planets.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210079)

Noone wants to plant a flag in Uranus

Re:Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210099)

But, but, Uranus is not a planet!

Sorry, my mistake tuning over the same realty as yours. Here it is Pluto that ain't a planet anymore. Forgive me, I know yeah yeah the Kuiper belt.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45212381)

Here it is Pluto that ain't a planet anymore. Forgive me, I know yeah yeah the Kuiper belt.

Kupier's getting old, I hear he's going to start wearing suspenders.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210147)

what's so great about planting flags? Scientifically it has no value. It would only be an ego-boost for those who plant the flag. And of course those should be the USA, because they are better than everyone else, right? I guess the USA really need an ego boost so they don't have to face up to the stupidities that religion has led them to commit.

Re:Flags (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#45210201)

what's so great about planting flags?

They could plant their dicks in the ground, for as much as I care, as long as they did develop the technology necessary to reach the planet, land, do their business, lift off, come back, and land safely (waiting in orbit for another ship to recover them is ok too).

The flag is just a little prettier for the media. After all, you're going to do gold plaques to immortalize and commemorate the moment. I'm not sure many people would hang in their walls a golden plaque of an astronaut planting his dick in Mercury.

Re:Flags (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210207)

what's so great about planting flags? Scientifically it has no value.

Agreed.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210357)

"It's Ours, Bitches" [smbc-comics.com]

Re:Flags (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45210787)

what's so great about planting flags?

Among other things, it means you have people in pace so that they can do things like that scientific stuff you seem to value. Even in the classic flag planting exercises of the Apollo program, they never spent more than a few minutes on that. For the later missions, they spent days doing actual science and exploration.

Re:Flags (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year ago | (#45210913)

Good job you're Anonymous Coward. Presumably you're an Anonymous Coward born before the Cold War too. I would recommend some reading, but I get the feeling you wouldn't be open to that.

Re:Flags (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45210963)

what's so great about planting flags? Scientifically it has no value.

It could refute the hypothesis that they grow when planted.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210215)

I find it sad that humanity stopped expanding as soon as it became a bit hard. And I don't think it's relatively harder now for us to expand than it was a thousand years ago.

If I feel particularly adventurous, I can put a boat together and float across the Atlantic ocean. Training helps. Preparation helps. But even a sufficiently motivated peasant could do it, or at least the odds are decent enough that even if a few hundred die, some could make it. It's a few thousand km.

Let's ignore the fact that even today there are only three space-faring (manned) nations, and they are three giant countries. This is not for lack of want in other parts of the globe. It is not like there were only three ocean-traveling nations a thousand years ago.

If I felt like going to Jupiter, if I had a big enough rocket, sufficient supplies, oxygen bottles (which was not something anyone had to deal with a thousand years ago), I'd have at least 628,743,036 million km to go.

It seems slightly harder.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210543)

Not to mention having to bring air, fuel and food with you. Those are things people on a boat don't need to worry about.

If something goes wrong on a boat, there are numerous things that can be done to save lives. If something goes wrong on a spaceship, you're dead.

Re:Flags (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210237)

than it was a thousand years ago.

There were people on every "corner" of the globe a thousand years ago. I assume that you prefer your history of a European imperialistic bent?

Re:Flags (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210329)

Reaching space isn't like crossing the Andes or the Atlantic, because those were crossings to hospitable environments. Expanding into space is like Columbus establishing a settlement on the mid-Atlantic rift.

Re:Flags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210349)

And we still haven't planted a flag in every planes in our solar system.

I find it sad that humanity stopped expanding as soon as it became a bit hard. And I don't think it's relatively harder now for us to expand than it was a thousand years ago.

While space exploration is great and all, we have plenty of problems we need to solve here at home before we spend a lot of money to send someone to a cold rock in space.

Re:Flags (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210447)

"...we have plenty of problems we need to solve here at home before we spend a lot of money to send someone to a cold rock in space."

What a worthless excuse. We will *always* have plenty of problems. We have always *had* plenty of problems.

But it's odd, isn't it - or did you fail to notice - how many of those problems went away as we explored and expanded and, yes, conquered.

Best to get all of our eggs out of this one fragile basket, lest we are overtaken by defeatism: as dangerous as any species-ending weapon, that.

Re:Flags (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45211169)

dunno.. it took quite a while to expand white mans universe through all of americas. such a long while that space age is just a blip.

Re:Flags (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#45211395)

Where do you plant a flag on a gas giant?

Re:Flags (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45211641)

I find it sad that humanity stopped expanding as soon as it became a bit hard.

A bit hard? I like that, "a bit hard." As if all we need is a little *gumption* to settle planets with no oxygen, no atmospheric pressure, intense radiation, no water, no soil--all located at distances that would require months, if not years (if not LIGHT YEARS), of travel through the vacuum of space. Yep, just like our explorer forebears, all we need is to toughen up and grow some balls and the other planets will become the new West. Now, if we could just figure out how to live without any of the necessities of human life in an environment that even the toughest bacteria can't survive in.

Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Peaks" (4, Insightful)

KernyKat (721157) | about a year ago | (#45209993)

To say the the count "peaks" suggests to me that the count has reached as high as it will go... which is nonsense!

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (-1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210017)

Not necessarily, a peak could be something you don't remember seeing before although it might have occurred a bazillion times...

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210031)

So you're saying your mental age peaked at two months?

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210075)

If it is your mental image, then it will seem like the supreme realty to you.

With a little training, you will be able to see further although.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210281)

If all meanings are possible, then it is not possible for me to deduce which one you intended. Your intended meaning of the word "peak" becomes just as valid as "minimum", or "potato".

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210351)

ok Sockatume, last explanation. After, I am off to work in some fancy bunker.

For a new born, it might seem like a peak. For somebody who has lived a thousand years, it is nothing new.

I sincerely wish you an happy experience as a new born spirit. That's what makes human so compelling.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210367)

Peaks are maxima, though. That's what distinguishes a peak from an upward slope. It's the peakiest thing about peaks, and if you were going to use a peak to refer to a thing that looks like it's peaking, that inherent peakiness is the most important thing you'd want to cinsider.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210411)

I am perfectly aware of the mainstream signification of "peaks". I am an actuarian amongst other things.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210505)

My point is simply that when you choose to use that word, out of all the words that can be used to indicate that something has been an upward trend, you're using the one word that most succinctly indicates that it said property is now in decline. It ain't a great choice.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210549)

Fuck mainstream. Didn't you notice where it got us so far? There is only one truth and many realties in realty.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210733)

Well, as I said, if you're going to communicate, you've got to consider how the recipient will parse the message.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210781)

I am all about parsing and this is no lies.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210069)

Nothing personal, that was just too easy a joke to make.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (3, Insightful)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#45210165)

No, not really. "Reaches", "Tops", "Exceeds", but not "Peaks", not unless the program is now ending and this is the final tally (which it isn't and it's not.)

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210195)

Any word you use relates to your own realty, which might be far from what is going in truth. Do I make myself clear enough?

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#45210227)

Any word you use relates to your own realty, which might be far from what is going in truth. Do I make myself clear enough?

No. Your word choice was poor. Had you said, "Any word you use relates to your own truth, which might be far from reality" it might have been more poetic. Your version just sounded like mindless po-mo wankery.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210271)

You got the meanings of truth and realty mixed up according to my standard but then again, I understand what you're saying...

See? It ain't that hard.

Realty is more often than you wished an illusion while there is only one truth.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210303)

You understand what he's saying because he's not engaged in linguistic solipsism.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210323)

Come on Sockatume.

Enough or else I"ll send some men in black to make you shut up.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45210853)

You got the meanings of truth and realty mixed up according to my standard but then again, I understand what you're saying...

It's not much of a "standard", if you're the only one following it.

Realty is more often than you wished an illusion while there is only one truth.

By commonly held definition, if it is illusion, it is not reality. But having said that, people do confuse their perceptions and beliefs with reality.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210919)

Just because you do not know many entities following my "standard" doesn't mean there isn't many following it. So yes, like it or not, it is a standard.

Your argument sounds like my father is stronger than yours. Please go meditating a bit.

What you perceive as realty is more than often an illusion. Get along with it.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45211093)

Communication is an odds game. If you talk to an audience in such a way that 99% of them will take the incorrect meaning from what you say, and 1% will take the correct one, you're not being pragmatic.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211435)

Communication is an odds game. If you talk to an audience in such a way that 99% of them will take the incorrect meaning from what you say, and 1% will take the correct one, you're not being pragmatic.

I'm a politician you insensitive clod! It's my job to only communicate with the 1% and screw the rest!

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210261)

The purpose of communication is to convey ideas to others. If you use words with an intended meaning that is different from that of the overwhelming majority of possible recipients of that message, you are communicating poorly.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210299)

Not necessarily, I could an emissary sent to make you better overall.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4366765&cid=45210271 [slashdot.org]

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210309)

You're broadcasting in code and you haven't given anyone the key.

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210381)

Very good point, I will work on that and get back to you if you volunteer. Be aware that you would be getting into a lot so you have to be mentally prepared.

Cheers,

Re:Bad subject word choice... "Exoplanet Count Pea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211907)

No thanks. I'm not interested in attempting to decode retard.

"Peaks"? (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45209997)

Are we expecting it to go down, and are the Vorlons or the Shadows responsible?

Re:"Peaks"? (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | about a year ago | (#45210059)

Are we expecting it to go down, and are the Vorlons or the Shadows responsible?

Whoever signed the Hyperspace Highway Development Plan 67-A-8437 is responsible. The Vogon construction fleet is just following that plan and can under no circumstance be held responsible.

Re:"Peaks"? (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a year ago | (#45210083)

I'm sure they meant "tops 1000". Or should it be "1000, tops"?

Re:"Peaks"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210109)

I guess we could write "exceeds 999" or "tops 999". To use 1000 we need an English word for "reaches or exceeds".

Re:"Peaks"? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210269)

Crosses, breaks, passes, beats, bests, surpasses...

Re:"Peaks"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210785)

Now we just need to get some of those included in English...!

Re:"Peaks"? (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45210871)

To use 1000 we need an English word for "reaches or exceeds".

Clearly unpossible.

Peaks? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210007)

Um, "peaks"? As in the count is now at a maximum and will be smaller in the future?

Re:Peaks? (1)

Alejux (2800513) | about a year ago | (#45210939)

Yep. It's all downhill from here, as planets starts to vanish.

Headline is misleading (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210037)

"Peaks" implies that we are at a time between an increasing exoplanet count and a decreasing exoplanet count. I highly doubt that is the case.
It would be better to use "stagnates at" if one wants to imply that we are approaching a maximum. If we are just talking about an arbitrary milestone for an ever increasing value it should have been "Exoplanet Count Reaches 1,000".

In other news half empty and half full are not equal and which one is most optimistic depends on the desired final state.
Very few "synonyms" are really synonymous and you should never use them to diversify your language since this leads to misunderstandings and unintentional lies.

Re:Headline is misleading (0)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210107)

Peaks are a matter of point of view.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4366765&cid=45210017 [slashdot.org]

Re:Headline is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210529)

Do you have any other reference for that? Linking to you own post doesn't really bring any more credibility that your stand-alone post and seems pretty pointless.

Re:Headline is misleading (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#45210559)

Do you have any other reference for that?

Nope you have to look to look into yourself and decide if you take my words for it. Interesting challenge, isn't it?

Re:Headline is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211037)

I already did and decided that you are wrong. It wasn't that interesting, I have dealt with trolls before.

Re:Headline is misleading (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45210887)

I'm not sure why you're complaining. He provided a citation. That makes it scientific!

Re:Headline is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210157)

Except that the exoplanet count never reached 1,000 since it jumped from 999 to 1,010. Back to English school.

Re:Headline is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210507)

AC here, would you like to clarify? English isn't my native language and according to the dictionary definitions I can find "reaches" would work just fine here.
Does it have something to do with having to be the exact amount? In that case I'm pretty sure that there was a time during counting that the actual number was exactly 1,000, even if that number never was published.

Re:Headline is misleading (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#45210751)

I suspect he's dealing with the thorny philosophical issue of whether a property, increasing from one value to another, inherently transitions through all the intermediate values.

Planets! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45210315)

Planets, planets, everywhere!

Why must I be stranded on this one, with the damn dirty apes?!

1000 is arbitrary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211135)

Ohhh what a nice round number it is, with all the zeros. It has to Mean something!

Hnnnngh (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year ago | (#45211385)

I really wish that one day I can visit another planet. :3

Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45211559)

Why is this news? We know there are an unfathomable number of stars out there. We know that the majority of them will have some sort of debris floating around them. There is no conceivable way for us to get to them. This is basically a case of "yup, there's something out there that we can barely see, that we can't learn much from, and that we'll never be able to get to." Thank you for spending my hard earned tax money on your fruitless pursuits.

Please work on something in the local star system that might actually be able to merit some benefit.

Kepler has 3000 "candidates" (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year ago | (#45211577)

I heard in an astronomy talk last week that Kepler has proposed 3200 exoplanets of which 155 have been verified by alternative observations.
Some reasons for verification:
(1) 3rd periodic transit not yet observed (longer orbit candidates).
(2) The Kepler CCD pixel contained multiple stars. Better telescopes are needed to distignusih which star has the plantet.
(3) Some other pehnomena like a sunspot cause the dimming.

"These Thousand Worlds" (1)

Quirkz (1206400) | about a year ago | (#45212073)

Puts me in the mood to read a little classic space travel. Some Asimov, or Heinlein, maybe. "These Thousand Worlds," a story of a galactic civilization hitting its stride as it colonizes it's thousandth planet, and the struggles it faces managing such a widespread and diverse collection of worlds.

Yes, I know most of the first thousand here aren't habitable, but I can imagine we've found and colonized a thousand that are, one of these days.

Load More 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>