Skip to main content

Fluffy comets — not!

I have occasionally wondered about movie depictions of comets as big, fluffy balls (albeit sometimes with surges & waves adding a bit of character) since the only other nominally fluffy things out there are stars or gas clouds, either of which are relatively huge in comparison. Fluffy things “not out there” can be quite different.

Now the Thunderbolts crew have run across some information which seems to show that comets are most un-fluffy with corners & other sharp bits.

This accords well with my thought that in order to survive anything substantial by way of a number of orbits, these bright little suckers would have to have a correspondingly substantial physical makeup.

It also accords better with the observation that in only a few decades, astronomical things have been watched changing, which of course renders the straight gradualist approach to astronomy fairly pointless (which will of course be, er, naturally unsettling to some people).

Oddly enough, this kind of observation also applies to Open Source software vis a vis its effect on the “gradualist” software business.

Items like OpenOffice, Linux, The GIMP etc have pretty much blindsided traditional commercial software providers — & the effects/consequences of that blindsiding are far from complete. Fundamental characteristics such as there simply not being a competitor to buy or pressure out of business will, I think, have the deepest & most lasting effects.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I found your blog because of the fact that I do love to read about comets (sometimes I like to scare myself.

Anyway, there is this article called "Tunguska the Horns of the Moon and Evolution" (a really long title with tons of info in the article) that you should read, if you have the chance.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/148819-Tunguska-the-Horns-of-the-Moon-and-Evolution

This web news source has quite a number of articles about comets. And, their web's motto is a "world for people who think". I like that. I like to think I'm a thinker.

Well, it's away to google more comet articles. Always looking for something new. Heads up, and watch the sky!
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Lotsa weird stuff there, but an interesting POV or 2 as well. Would take half a lifetime to assess. Next!

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...