Meridiani Planum: 'Drenched'

" George" wrote in message ...
"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
" George" wrote in message
...

Although I wouldn't count out the Spirit site yet, I get a strong
feeling
that as far as sedimentary structures are concerned, it may be a dud. I
hope I end up eating those words. Even so, there is a lot of unique
geology
that can be conducted there. After all, it is another planet.

Balls. Seen one planet, you've seen em all.

Ok, let's test your theory. What makes Mars just like Neptune?

It's big and round like your napper, nut.

"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
" George" wrote in message
...
"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
" George" wrote in message
...

Although I wouldn't count out the Spirit site yet, I get a strong
feeling
that as far as sedimentary structures are concerned, it may be a
dud. I
hope I end up eating those words. Even so, there is a lot of unique
geology
that can be conducted there. After all, it is another planet.

Balls. Seen one planet, you've seen em all.

Ok, let's test your theory. What makes Mars just like Neptune?

It's big and round like your napper, nut.

Wrong answer. The correct answer is that Mars is nothing like Neptune,
dork. One is a rocky world and the other is a gas giant. Maybe you should
throw out that 1940s vintage popular science book you cling to with glee and
get an update.

"Chosp" wrote in message news:PIq1c.14968$h23.6129@fed1read06

C "Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
C ...
"TLE" == Thomas Lee Elifritz writes:

A science writer once told me about the percentages of people who
pay attention to this kind of stuff. Something like 50% (at least)
of the (US) population simply doesn't care about space exploration.
Period. They don't care about whether Mars was wet or dry, they
won't read newspapers stories about Mars or space in general, etc.
Of the remainder, most of the people only will read the occasional
front-page story. The number of people who care at the level of
following the news intensely and are willing to wonder about whether
Mars was once wet or dry is actually fairly small.

C And yet there have been over 6.5 BILLION hits on the Mars Rover
C Web site since the landings. Probably over 7 billion by now.
C That suggests that there is more interest than might otherwise have
C been expected. It is not credible that a small amount of people made
C all those hits.

Interesting that you should cite this statistic. A recent issue of
Science (2004 February 27) contains a brief mention of it. From the
article, "NASA defines a hit as a request for information from their
Web server, so downloading a page with, say, text and three pictures
[...] would count as four hits."

The estimated number of *visitors* is about 50 million.

This is about 15% of the US population and less than 10% of the
combined US and Western European populations. Looks like my science
writer source was fairly accurate (unfortunately).

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:
Interesting that you should cite this statistic. A recent issue of
Science (2004 February 27) contains a brief mention of it. From the
article, "NASA defines a hit as a request for information from their
Web server, so downloading a page with, say, text and three pictures
[...] would count as four hits."

The estimated number of *visitors* is about 50 million.

This is about 15% of the US population and less than 10% of the
combined US and Western European populations. Looks like my science
writer source was fairly accurate (unfortunately).

Yet this is the standard way to measure web site activity, which means
it is useful when compared to hit counts on other web sites. Compare it
to, say, Amazon.com, in the same period. I think you will find that on
a relative basis the numbers represent an enormous amount of interest.

As for percentage of US population, you must take into account those who
don't own a computer, don't get their news from one, or simply don't
know about the JPL web site. I've spoken to a lot of people who were
interested but didn't know about the web site: they appear to outnumber
those who do. In other words, it isn't accurate to try to use the
estimated number of visitors as a strict measure of interest, assuming
inaccurately that everyone who is interested visits the site.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

"GC" == Greg Crinklaw writes:

GC Joseph Lazio wrote:
Interesting that you should cite this statistic. A recent issue of
Science (2004 February 27) contains a brief mention of it. From
the article, "NASA defines a hit as a request for information from
their Web server, so downloading a page with, say, text and three
pictures [...] would count as four hits." The estimated number of
*visitors* is about 50 million. This is about 15% of the US
population and less than 10% of the combined US and Western
European populations. Looks like my science writer source was
fairly accurate (unfortunately).

GC Yet this is the standard way to measure web site activity, which
GC means it is useful when compared to hit counts on other web sites.
GC Compare it to, say, Amazon.com, in the same period. I think you
GC will find that on a relative basis the numbers represent an
GC enormous amount of interest.

Provided that, say, amazon.com measures hits in the same way that NASA
does, that's correct.

GC As for percentage of US population, you must take into account
GC those who don't own a computer, don't get their news from one, or
GC simply don't know about the JPL web site. I've spoken to a lot of
GC people who were interested but didn't know about the web site:
GC they appear to outnumber those who do. In other words, it isn't
GC accurate to try to use the estimated number of visitors as a
GC strict measure of interest, assuming inaccurately that everyone
GC who is interested visits the site.

All valid points. I was responding to somebody who claimed that 6
billion hits indicated a huge amount of interest. My point was that
"hits" are not the same as "visitors." At best, as you point out,
"hits" can be used to measure only relative levels of interest among
the computer-owning population.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:
All valid points. I was responding to somebody who claimed that 6
billion hits indicated a huge amount of interest. My point was that
"hits" are not the same as "visitors." At best, as you point out,
"hits" can be used to measure only relative levels of interest among
the computer-owning population.

Yes, but relative levels of interest are of interest, and in fact, they
are a good measure. I am of the belief that 6 billion hits *is* huge.
It's certainly more than my web site gets! :-)

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

In article ,
says...

snip

I was responding to somebody who claimed that 6
billion hits indicated a huge amount of interest. My point was that
"hits" are not the same as "visitors." At best, as you point out,
"hits" can be used to measure only relative levels of interest among
the computer-owning population.

Exactly. When you realize that each element "load" on a page is
considered a hit, and that there are usually something like 20 or 30
elements per page, and how many times I, by myself, have loaded pages
from the rover websites, I'm probably accounting for nearly a hundred
thousand hits by now, all by myself...

Doug