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


Let's help them out (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756041)

I suggest we donate one of our stars. How about Ben Affleck?

Re:Let's help them out (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756062)

Or Alec Baldwin.

Re:Let's help them out (2, Funny)

-medeakun- (811380) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756134)

Define: Brown Dwarf

A Brown Dwarf is a "Failed star"

Yep, sounds like Mr. Affleck all right.

This is really fitting (-1, Offtopic)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756045)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Why does slashdot put stories up before it's quite ready?

Re:This is really fitting (0, Offtopic)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756262)


$5 for 1000 pages. If you set it up so the subscription is 1 ad-free page per day, like me, you can be subscribed for more than two and half years for five bucks (I've gotten some gift subscriptions and at this rate I'll be subscribed for the next eleven years), which is great for trolls who only want to see stories early so they can get semi-relevant first troll posts into stories that get modded up long enough to cause problems and throttle legit discussion.

The "nothing to see here" means the story is up, but to try and keep the trolls away it can't be posted to for about 60 seconds after it's put on the front page (and, as a side effect, if the entire write up isn't on the front page, you can't read the whole story either).

Clearly it's just another failed attempt by Taco and friends to keep trolls out. It doesn't, I've gotten in two or three first post trolls that resulted in giant pissing matches despite the "Nothing to see here" crap, so all it does, like most of the other "anti-troll filters" on /., is inconvenience legit posters. If Malda wasn't so anal about having meta-discussions about the site somewhere on Slashdot, he'd know this.

How appropriate... (5, Funny)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756051)

...that I click on "Read More" to find out about matter that's invisible to us and all I get is:

"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."


Re:How appropriate... (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756170)

Of course there's nothing for _you_ to see there. It's a South East Wales galaxy, or that's what I understand from the link. So, unless you are Sou-East-Walesian (sp? wallian? walesianese?...) there's nothing for you, really.

Re:How appropriate... (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756192)

> > "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
> That's no galaxy, that's a space station!

Wrong movie. Both of ya stop it!

"My god! It's full of st... no, wait a minute"
- Arthur V. Fark, HI21: A Galactic Oddity

That explains it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756063)

Ah, so THAT's where all the indie movies are coming from.

Meanwhile, on VIRGOHI21... (5, Funny)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756065)

Astronomers have discovered a galaxy about 50 million darkyears away from Virgo that appears to be composed entirly of light matter. This galaxy, dubbed EARTHHI21 is rotating like a real galaxy, at speeds only explainable through massive amounts of matter, thought no single dark mass could be detected."

The Speed of Dark (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756069)

"Astronomers have discovered a galaxy about 50 million lightyears away from earth that appears to be composed entirly of dark matter.

Should't that be 50 million darkyears?

Re:The Speed of Dark (0)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756200)

Presumably "light years" will continue to be scientifically accurate. However, the term may eventually end up being similar to terms like "far east" and "mid-east" [wikipedia.org] (east from Europe) and "invertebrates" [wikipedia.org], terms which tell more about the perspective of the group who named it than about the thing itself.

Re:The Speed of Dark (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756257)

He was making a joke dumbass.

Re:The Speed of Dark (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756261)

No, the speed of dark is still unknown, but it is expected to be a lot faster than speed of light. Because where ever the light goes, the dark is already there waiting for it.

"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." (1)

windowpain (211052) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756070)

I've been getting that too, all morning long. I know it's offtopic but WTF?

Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (1)

crummynz (818547) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756136)

Just a slight delay between the topic being posted and the actual content of the article, AFAIK.

Seems a little strange, but it's probably because of the massive amounts of traffic Slashdot gets.

Re:"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756298)

It's because the Slashdot coders couldn't write a decent guestbook, let alone a message board.

Black holes? (0)

wdd1040 (640641) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756071)

What about black holes? Are they just saying there is no light being emitted?

Not Black holes (1)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756154)

Since this guy was doing radio observations, he must have detected a weak radio signature for Hydrogen emission from this dwarf galaxy. A bulk of hydrogen gas (still dark matter) would look different from that of blackholes in radio.

Re:Black holes? (2, Interesting)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756155)

Could there be something blocking a star, like a blackhole or something?

Also, is it possible that there was once a star, but now there isn't.

Could they be rotating around something cold and solid, or something not burning bright enough to be visible at these distances

Re:Black holes? (4, Informative)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756214)

Each black hole is practically a point-like source, not good at blanketting to shield off the light from a bunch of stars all over the place. A thick smoke screen (like hydrogen) is better at doing that.

Besides, black holes may be bright in X-rays and other wavelengths. They should've been detected a long ago, if it were a full of BHs.

Re:Black holes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756290)

To be clear; black holes are light matter?

Re:Black holes? (2, Informative)

Angstroem (692547) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756174)

A black hole (especially of that size) whould create a gravitational lens which could be spotted in the visible spectrum as well.

Re:Black holes? (5, Informative)

vivin (671928) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756219)

It doesn't have anything to do with black holes.

If it was a black hole, it would be detected by the movement of visible objects around it, or x-ray and gamma-ray bursts from acceleration jets and from energy emitted by the accretion disk.

Dark Matter is simply "missing matter", or matter that cannot be detected through emitted radiation. It can, however, be detected through its (gravitational) effects on surrounding bodies.

Re:Black holes? (1)

bleckywelcky (518520) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756323)

Has anyone determined exactly what darkmatter is though? To me it sounds like simply matter that in its current state is not emiting any radiation. And, is not near a source that is emiting raiation of which the dark matter would reflect that radiation.

So basically, it's like a box in a dark room. If you look into that room, you don't see the box. But, if you shine a flashlight on it, the box will reflect that light back at you. Regular matter is the same thing, but there is a nearby radiation source (a lightbulb in the dark room), or the light matter is radiating on its own (the box itself is a lightbulb). The same applies to any other EM frequency, not just visible frequencies.

Re:Black holes? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756251)

Even black holes emit light. What they are saying is that no visible radiation is being emitted.

I like the picture (2)

Inkieminstrel (812132) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756072)

I love the picture of the night sky with a big circle around a nondescript part. I looked at it was like "oicic."

Re:I like the picture (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756223)

What got me about the picture was the amount of stars visible BEHIND the supposed dark matter galaxy.

Granted, some background light may be visible through it, but it looks no different than empty space.

I don't doubt the astronomers detected "something" in that region of space, but to immediately tell us its a galaxy is another.

Even with radio signals, we are able to translate the signals into something visible.

would certainly better than looking at nothingness.

Re:I like the picture (1, Redundant)

nuclear305 (674185) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756256)

I thought it was also funny that there are stars and such within said circle...

Yep, let's talk about a dark-matter galaxy where no stars can be seen and then post a picture of what looks like a normal starfield and circle a part of it that looks no different from the rest.

Re:I like the picture (5, Funny)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756273)

Having never seen an invisible galaxy before, I'm glad they circled it...

Sometimes I get the feeling that scientists are just fucking with me.

Re:I like the picture (2)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756277)

Thats nothing, I have detected dark matter galaxies all the time. If you want I can send you a picture of another constellation...I will even draw an arbitrary circle near by it. I promise it has a dark matter galaxy. If you want I could license the galaxy to you.

Planet Hollywood (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756078)

No stars, and I bet the food is crappy as well.

Name submission... (2, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756087)

... I submit that it be named the "Goatse Galaxy".

FYI (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756092)

It was found 50 million light years away using radio telescopes in Cheshire
FYI : the radio telescope in Cheshire (that's in North West England), is Jodrell Bank [man.ac.uk]. Which some of you will remember from the following :
The huge yellow somethings went unnoticed at Goonhilly, they passed over Cape Canaveral without a blip, Woomera and Jodrell Bank looked straight through them -- which was a pity because it was exactly the sort of thing they'd been looking for all these years

Dark Matter (2, Interesting)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756093)

It its comprised of large amounts of Dark Matter, how can they tell that its spinning?

Re:Dark Matter (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756235)

It's the same with black holes. Invisibility doesn't mean it doesn't affect it's surroundings.

If looking for an analogy, imagine the invisible ghost/person/whatever made visible after throwing flour on him/her. Of course it's simplified and not entirely accurate, but this is the general idea.

Re:Dark Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756275)

It's impossible to stay wide if you're massive and not spinning.

Re:Dark Matter (3, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756294)

It its comprised of large amounts of Dark Matter, how can they tell that its spinning?

All galaxies must spin, otherwise they would collapse.

As for how they tell how much it is spinning -- one side is spinning towards us, the other is spinning away. Thus the spectrum of radiation from the side spinning toward us is blue-shifted relative to the side spinning away from us. By measuring the amount of blue-shift they can figure out the speed at which it rotates.

Re:Dark Matter (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756316)

and direction. Doesn't have to be towards or away from us...it could be spinning (counter)clockwise.

Re:Dark Matter (1)

spanklin (710953) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756305)

It its comprised of large amounts of Dark Matter, how can they tell that its spinning?

I haven't read the article yet, but I can give you my guess as to what is going on. They probably detected it first in neutral hydrogen gas, and then investigated the area where they detected this large gas cloud in optical light to look for stars. The claim that it is rotating comes again from the gas, by measuring the doppler shifts in the galaxy's radio emission, they can measure the velocity field of the galaxy. This measurement allows you to derive a plot of speed as a function of distance from the center, which for a rotating object has a certain pattern, which is very commonly seen in normal galaxies (those that contain stars).

Re:Dark Matter (4, Insightful)

Agent Orange (34692) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756320)

They observed the neutral hydrogen gas (HI), which emits radio waves at the well-known 21cm wavelength. This is not dark at all. From the rotation of the gas, we can work out, with a few assumptions, how big the gravitational potentional would be required in order that the gas is bound. This extra mass is assumed to be dark matter.

Another explanation? (4, Funny)

funny-jack (741994) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756104)

Maybe the entire galaxy is surrounded by particles of dust from a long-destroyed supercomputer?

Dark matter is sciences god (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756106)

can't see but it is there and its all powerful, honestly !

dark matter is just another word for "we have no idea"

Re: Dark matter is sciences god (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756271)

> ark matter is just another word for "we have no idea"

I think you meant to say that you have no idea.

Re:Dark matter is sciences god (3, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756297)

Not really.

Serious scientist DO say when they have no idea.

Dark matter indicates that there is a whole field of physics out there and that we're in the state of peaking through the keyhole atm, before opening the door. BTW, this is what the article states, just worded differently when it says something about starting to understand things.

Massive Amounts of Dark Matter? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756109)

That's weird, I just saw massive dark matter on another blog [goat.cx] I like to browse from time to time...

Re:Massive Amounts of Dark Matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756308)

goat.cx got suspended by the NIC.

Webster needs update (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756110)

1913'Webster [everything2.com] mentioned that "The term has recently been used for remote clusters of stars".
So I guess it will have to be updated.

Douglas Adams would be eating his words (1)

Jack Taylor (829836) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756114)

To think he thought the missing matter was the polystyrene used in packaging... ;)

cont.... (1)

MudButt (853616) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756117)

"The lab quickly retracted their findings, however, when it was learned that Marlon Brando paid $70M to orbit the Earth in a black space suit..."

It's a dark galaxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756121)

i live there so fuck off

Intelligent Life! (5, Funny)

Catiline (186878) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756123)

Aha! It's intelligent life! They must have engineered millions of Dyson Spheres over all the stars of their galaxy!

it's called dark matter because..... (2, Funny)

glen604 (750214) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756128)

you know, i clicked on the link just to see if there was a picture of it...

yeah, i'm not thinking too quick today...

Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (2, Interesting)

Angry Toad (314562) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756129)

Isn't this what they've been telling us to look for for years now - the entire energy output of a galaxy caught and channelled for use by an intelligence that has spread throughout it's own galaxy?

/not really serious

Re:Dyson/Matroska Spheres? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756148)

If it was caught and channeled we wouldn't be able to see it. Cos it would be caught and channeled.

Ob Starwars reference (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756133)

No galaxy that small has a cloaking device!

It's called... (1, Funny)

jarich (733129) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756139)

A galaxy with no stars, composed entirely of dark matter... it's name?



How about funding them with dark money (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756158)

Geez! Dark Matter!? Astronomers calculations don't add up, so they invent "Dark Matter" as book keeping. If these guys were accountants they'd be in prison.

Quick Thinking! (5, Funny)

955301 (209856) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756161)

My favorite part of the article: Someone thought that circling the invisible galaxy in the picture was a helpful move.

Personally, I think articles with discoveries this exciting need to be written with more enthusiasm [theonion.com]

Hm (1, Funny)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756180)

So, lots of mass and hot air, but no discernible light or stars.

Yeah, it sounds like pretty much every radio talk show host in the world.

Anyone Question the Existence of Dark Matter? (2, Interesting)

Alaren (682568) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756182)

So, this is pretty exciting... I think. But seriously, we have this "dark matter," the only thing we seem to know about it is that it is the best explanation we have for anomalies in our understanding of gravity.

Anyone remember aether? No one had any proof that it existed, but it was the most reasonable explanation we had for anomalies in our understanding of light.

I'm not saying they're wrong, I mean, I am not an astrophysicist (IANAA?) but the "science press" is making much ado about dark matter when for all we know, we simply don't understand gravity as well as we think we do.

I guess "dark matter" just sounds cooler than "apparently we don't know as much as we thought."

Re:Anyone Question the Existence of Dark Matter? (5, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756226)

While the idea that our understanding of gravity is incorrect is very exciting to me... I don't think you can really draw the comparison between aether and dark matter.

It was easy to disprove the existence of aether with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Had that experiment not been possible it would have been very premature to jump to the conclusion that there is no aether. When it comes to dark matter, there is no easy experiment to disprove its existence and so it would be very rash to conclude that our understanding of gravity, which has worked extremely well for us for hundreds of years, is wrong.

let there be light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756186)

it's because GOD hasn't said "let there be light" yet...

Have they also found a wolfless pack? (1)

Pac (9516) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756196)

Or a fishless school? A shipless starfleet nearby?

Seriously, a galaxy [google.com] is a collection of stars. A starless galaxy is not a galaxy, else I have a starless galaxy in my drawer.

What really happened: (5, Funny)

ZeeExSixAre (790130) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756197)

"Hey Joe... check this out... There isn't a visible star at all!"

"Um, Bill? The lenscap is still on..."

Re:What really happened: (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756301)

Funny indeed, but it also raises a point - how do these astronomers know that it's not just some intervening (and likely much, much closer) object that's opaque to visible light but permits radio wavelengths to pass through?

Romulans (2, Funny)

shpoffo (114124) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756206)

We have clearly found the galaxy that the Romulan home-world resides within. Now if we can detect traces of ion trails that would reveal the cloaking......


I've figured out dark matter (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756218)

...and it doesn't require exotic quarks, leptons, or baryons to work.

Okay, that's an enormous (and highly unlikely) exaggeration, but I *have* thought of an interesting possibility. A Dyson Sphere surrounding several stars (or in a Type 3 civilization, an entire galaxy) would block visible light - the problem is it would glow in the infrared, so it wouldn't really be dark. Black holes are dark, but they tend to fling stuff around, and matter sucked into them gives off bursts of energy before they disappear.

The solution: a dark bubble. At the center of our galaxy there is a supermassive black hole, which is (according to some estimates) roughly three million solar masses. A civilization putting a bubble around it would have 1 (earth) gravity a little beyond the orbit of Pluto, perhaps 40-45 A.U. or so. The problem is that you still would need to stick some stars around it to supply energy, and a Klemperer rosette would be pretty noticeable.

Well, light falling onto a blackhole blue shifts, increasing its energy. Increase the bubble enough (remember, we're talking a civilization that can harness the energy of a galaxy), and the mass of the bubble itself starts to warp space around it. There comes a point where the size of the bubble and the mass that makes it up can be just under the Schwarzschild limit - a bit more massive and it would be a black hole - even without a central singularity. For humans, we'd want a bubble that has a surface gravity equal to earth's, and a blue-shifted energy equal to the average output from our sun.

As a back-of-the envelope calculation, using v^2=2*g*R, where v is the escape velocity, g is the gravitational attraction at the earth's surface, and R is the radius from the center of mass, and setting v=c (the speed of light) for the maximum size, you get a bubble with a diameter just a bit under a light-year across (354 light days, if I figured correctly). The surface area would be about 3 square light-years, 2.6 x 10^26 square kilometers, or 5.2 x 10^17 times the surface area of the earth. The mass would be equivalent to 1.5 trillion suns - roughly twice the mass of our galaxy. Assuming you use buckytubes as the material of choice, you'd have a shell 7000 kilometers thick of solid buckminsterfullerene.

Of course, this is the absolute maximum size and mass just before it becomes a black hole, so the actual construct would be a bit smaller and less massive, balancing surface gravity and blue-shifted energy hitting the surface. You'd also want to carve out mountain ranges and oceans for a bit of variety - a galactic Kansas would be kind of boring. For safety reasons, you would have to stick these bubbles in the empty space between galaxies, or just use all of the mass in one large galaxy (you'd have to be careful, though, to keep relativistic rocks from flying at the completed project). You'd have a sky that would look kind of like a slow-moving aurora, perhaps -- infrared would be shifted into visible light, visible stars would have their peak shifted to ultraviolet -- especially since the gravitational warping would slow down time considerably compared to the rest of the galaxy.

To detect them, you'd have to aim telescopes at the "empty" parts of the sky and see if there was any gravitational lensing. If something was there that was far too massive to be a neutron star but didn't have the characteristics of a supermassive black hole, that could be a sign of it. The largest ones would have the gravitational mass of a large galaxy, so if a supercluster appears to be missing a galaxy's worth of stars that stellar motions demand, it might not be exotic matter but instead bubbles of normal matter from some vast engineering project.

Of course, it might be too early in the evolution of the universe for a type 3 civilization to appear, or you might not be able to make a buckytube bubble big enough that would also support its own weight, so exotic forms of matter might still be necessary. One thing's for certain, though - a bubble like this would make Ringworld look as spacious as a phone booth.

Twinkle twinkle little star... (3, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756221)

Twinkle twinkle little star
How I wonder where you are.
Lightyears away in VIRGOHI21 so far
Oh why can't I see you, you naughty naughty star.

So then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756222)

...it's like a flea circus, but it's not a circus, and the fleas; they are stars. Seriously, they're there...you just can't see them. Now give me your money...err...I mean funding so I can, ummm, research this further.

Misnomer (1)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756233)

We're going to have to find a new name for these dark matter aggregations, as they're definitely not galaxies. The root "gala" means "milk". Milk is white, and star-filled galaxies are generally whitish. Dark matter isn't.

This etymology lesson brought to you by the number 1 and the letter O.

This just in . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756245)

This just in - Researchers have diagnosed a new disease with no known symptoms !

Gotta love George!

Fuck you! I'm not getting on the plane, I'm getting IN the plane.

Matter Firewalling (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756248)

Perhaps the inhabitants of that galaxy don't want us accessing their sensitive data and have employed a matter firewall? Meanwhile we're like sitting ducks in the universe...

I call bullshit (-1, Troll)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756250)

They claim to have detected a large amount of Hydrogen using radio a radio telescope. So where is the false color image of this galaxy? How do they know it's rotating like a galaxy? The only way you can claim the presense dark matter is by its effects on real matter. They haven't shown any sort of evidence of the real matter they claim to have detected. To post a picture of empty space and say it's full of dark matter is just stupid. I think the only dark matter this article shows is in the astronomers head.

Crunchy Candy Shell (2, Funny)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756252)

Why is nobody considering that no light is escaping this galaxy because of some sort of hitherto undiscovered crunchy candy shell?

Seriously, though.... Just because no light gets out doesn't mean no light is produced.

FYI: What is Dark Matter (4, Informative)

vivin (671928) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756260)

Dark Matter is matter that cannot be directly detected through emitted radiation. But you can detect it through its effect on surrounding bodies. The effect is usually gravitational.

The concept of Dark Matter evolved from the "missing mass problem". You can estimate the amount of mass in a cluster of galaxies based on the motions of other objects around the object in question. When you compare this mass to the mass based on the total brightness (visible mass) of the galaxy, you can find a huge discrepancy. This is the "missing mass".

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] provides more information.

Starless you say! (-1, Redundant)

rindeee (530084) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756278)

Well, then send them; Ben Affleck, Paris Hilton, Ellen DeGeneres, Britney Spears, Hilary Duff and a whole slew of others. Shoot, they won't know the difference, and we'll be rid of them.

uh huh (1, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 8 years ago | (#11756283)

hmm, dark matter galaxy, yeah, fascinating, whatever. I can't BELIEVE Apple isn't shipping iPod minis and photos without FireWire cables!!!!!

Dark matter by definition doesn't emit or reflect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11756296)

Dark matter by definition doesn't emit or reflect anything, then how on earth (literally?) did they discover radiation from this so called dark galaxy?
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