Riding with Robots writes "Scientists have announced that they have used images from the robotic spacecraft Cassini to find moonlets embedded in Saturn's outer rings that are likely the remains of a larger moon that was shattered by an asteroid or comet. The team from the University of Colorado at Boulder that made the discovery has now posted details and pictures."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Back in 2005, there were a few stories circulating about people funding their startups and college educations by playing online poker. The passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 pretty much put an end to most of these plans. The act prohibits banks and credit card companies from processing online gambling transactions. However, even though the exact details of the law are still yet to be flushed out, banks are already blocking such transactions out of fear that they might fall under its prohibitions. So, while it is still legal to play poker online, players have to jump through hoops to fill their accounts with money, effectively crippling the entire online poker industry in the US. This week, the Poker Players Alliance, which represents 800,000 worldwide poker enthusiasts, marched on Washington with 100 of their members, including famous poker stars Howard Lederer, Chris Moneymaker, Annie Duke, and former New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato. Poker enthusiasts argue that poker is a game of skill, and therefore, should not be banned under the gambling act. Not only do they think that poker should be allowed, poker enthusiasts go as far as to claim that poker is educational and aids in cognitive development. Well, whether or not poker is educational is still up for debate, but there's no doubt that online poker was big business in the US prior to the ban. And, with the lobby already spending $640,000 in the first six months of this year, they are betting big on getting back into the US market. Hopefully for them, it's not a sucker's bet.

TaeKwonDood writes "The brain region responsible for believing you can seduce Giselle Bundchen or make a YouTube clone for bobble-head doll movies successful has been located. Surprisingly, it is not in a bottle of Jager, it's in the rostral anterior cingulate and amygdala."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Back in early 2006, we first heard about Seriosity, a company that was trying to take the ideas in video games and apply them to enterprise software. It's the type of story that is intriguing... but is it actually working? It's hard to tell, but so far there isn't much evidence. The company keeps getting press, but there never seem to be any success stories -- just a focus on the concept and what a great idea it is. About the only thing that's come out of it so far is a silly idea to add fake currency to email that doesn't make much sense once you think it through. The NY Times wrote an article about them earlier this year as well, and after reading it, all you could think was that their ideas for making enterprise software fun... didn't sound particularly fun. Now the BBC is taking its shot at as well, with yet another article, again predicting that this could be a big business. Could be... yes. But, is it? So far, it doesn't seem like there's much traction as none of the articles seem to have much to go on. It seems like it's a good story for the press to write about, but most companies are much more concerned with overall productivity than making work seem "fun." If they're going to convince companies to sign up, there needs to be a bit more substance behind what the company seems to be pitching.

coondoggie writes "If you build it, NASA will not only come, it'll give you $2 million dollars for you troubles. The space agency today said it will offer $2 million in prizes if competing teams can successfully build a lunar lander at the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge at Holloman Air Force Base, in Alamogordo, N.M. Oct. 27 and 28th. To win the prize, teams must demonstrate a rocket-propelled vehicle and payload that takes off vertically, climbs to a defined altitude, flies for a pre-determined amount of time, and then land vertically on a target that is a fixed distance from the launch pad. After landing, the vehicle must take off again within a predetermined time, fly for a certain amount of time and then land back on its original launch pad."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Sure, it had been rumored for over a month now, but the news that Facebook actually convinced Microsoft to buy a stake at a $15 billion valuation still makes you do a doubletake. Microsoft put in $240 million for a tiny 1.6% of Facebook. This is less than the $500 million originally rumored, but it tips the scales in terms of totally ridiculous valuations. We had thought that it was Skype who had played the game the best in its insanity inducing ascent to getting bought. Despite only having revenue under $10 million per year, the company started spreading rumors that it was worth over $1 billion. This was helped along by a reporter who confused millions and billions, and suddenly we were off to the races. Suddenly, without any real change in business prospects, we were told that the company was worth $3 billion and then the suitors really started showing up until eBay coughed up $2.6 billion with earnouts that could have brought the deal to $4.3 billion. Of course, we all know how that game ended: eBay just evaporated $1.43 billion of that deal. Last year, it was YouTube who played the same game, riding the hype and whispers to a Google buyout for what now appears to be a paltry $1.65 billion (plus legal headaches). That was merely around $3 million for every day the company had existed.

However, in 2007, we clearly have a new champion at this game. Facebook is most certainly a popular and viral site. However, there are still plenty of questions about how much money the site can really generate long term. When Yahoo apparently tried to buy Facebook last year for $1.62 billion, the math still seemed ridiculous and hard to support. To then make the case for a valuation 10x only a year later goes into fantasy territory. Also, there's a big question about what Microsoft gets out of this. It's hard to see them getting a huge return on the investment. Yes, Facebook is growing and there are some interesting possibilities there -- but we've also seen every other social network before Facebook grow rapidly, peak, and then fall off the map pretty quickly as well. And, even with the growth rate and adoption for Facebook, the rumors concerning how much revenue it's bringing in make it next to impossible to for this valuation to make any sense. About the only rationale that seems to make sense is that Microsoft just threw away $240 million to block Google from getting the deal. Maybe that's worth $240 million (pocket change) to Microsoft in the grand scheme of things -- but it's difficult to see Facebook ever being able to justify that kind of valuation unless something massive changes in the near future. Still, it's great news for Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg who were able to play this game better than anyone we've seen before. Meet your new valuation insanity champion.

Museum of Hoaxes found this video that purports to show an audio speaker that pulls objects towards it.

Obviously it's fake. Audio speakers will not create a gravity field. But I'm not sure how they created the special effect. (Not that I know much about creating video effects.)

Perhaps they used some kind of fancy editing software. Or perhaps they did it a really low-tech way -- moving the objects one frame at a time to make it appear as if they were sliding towards the speaker. If they did it the latter way, they managed to make the sliding effect look very smooth.

How do you think it was done? Link

Here is a video of Wouter Bijendkik, a Dutch magician who performs as Ramana, levitating outside the White House. He has, er, risen to the occasion in many famous locales, including Times Square.
Link to White House levitation, Link to NYC levitation on YouTube, Link to Ramana's site (via Cabinet of Wonders)

Enselic writes "After almost three years since the release of GIMP 2.2, the GIMP developers have just announced the release of GIMP 2.4. The release notes speak of scalable bitmap brushes, redesigned rectangle/ellipse selection tools, redesigned crop tool, a new foreground selection tool, a new align tool, reorganized menu layouts, improved zoomed in/zoomed out image display quality, improved printing and color management support and a new perspective clone tool."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

It's no secret that the US has been trying to force other countries to adopt more stringent copyright laws as a part of "free trade" agreements. As we've pointed out, this is particularly ironic, given that these policies are usually the opposite of free trade. They're really traditional protectionist policies to protect the business model of Big Copyright companies. That's why it came as no surprise (and barely seemed worth mentioning) when the Bush Administration's Trade Representative Susan Schwab announced plans to keep pushing draconian copyright laws on the rest of the world. However, reader Kevin writes in to make a good point. After Schwab spoke, Senate Finance Committee Senator Max Baucus talked about how important it was to support this export of our copyright laws: "Ideas are America's true currency and if we want to be economically competitive, strong protections for U.S. intellectual property are key." As Kevin explains, it appears Senator Bachus, so enthusiastic about exporting our copyright laws, doesn't understand copyright law: "You cannot copyright ideas. Though the dichotomy between expression (qualifies for copyright) and ideas (not allowed copyright) is subtle, as a protector of the Constitution and exporter of American legal systems, I would hope Mr. Baucus would review it." Though, honestly, does it really surprise anyone at this point that those pushing for stronger copyright protectionism don't actually understand copyright?

Watching various people get on an airplane to go to Hawaii to an insider invite-only Silicon Valley conference (on Twitter), and thinking about the various business ideas the valley is floating these days, advertising, and how valuations work, and how unaccustomed the insiders are at having their ideas challenged, I came to a few rapid-fire conclusions last night on Twitter. (One good reason to follow me on Twitter is I tend to blurt out things there that would get me in trouble here on my blog.)

Twit #1: "I have a theory that 'user generated content' is a last-gasp of the regal outlook of silicon valley, where we're all chumps or slaves." (Before UGC we were just supposed to be eyeballs, consuming their shovelware, buying stuff we see in ads. They had to adjust their thinking when it became apparent that we were also interested in creating, though we're positioned as generators not creators.)

Twit #2: "The role of the tech industry is to create tools and players. To enable creativity, not harness and control it." (I think this is when it all works best.)

Twit #3: "If you're scared to hear what people really think you're not prepared for the world you live in." (I finally figured this one out. The reason so many people in SV say I can't be trusted (it's observable) is because I'm equally likely to say your product sucks as I am to say it's great. This is a culture raised on Gee Whiz editorial coverage, the adulation of MSM. When blogs came along they had to hear that not everyone thinks they're so wonderful all the time. Who would you hate most but the guy who pushed the tools that made everyone with an opinion so audible. And would you expect such a person to keep his opinion to himself? Heh.)

Even though I think this, I know I'm actually full of shit...

Guy Kawasaki asked me once why so many people say I'm not a nice person, when in fact I am. If I saw you on the street I'd smile and say hello. I stop when someone is in the crosswalk. Nothing makes me happier than making a tool that people enjoy. I try to listen to everyone, and I don't care how much money you have. I never answered Guy's question, but here it is. If you asked me why some individual person thinks something, I'd say you'd have to ask them. That's basic respect. Let people speak for themselves. If you ask me why 100 people think something, I'm even more clueless.

BTW, Guy and I weren't friends for a long time after being good friends for a long time. I much prefer having him as a friend, I missed his company while we weren't talking. He doesn't suffer fools, and he's the first person to question his own thinking if someone says he's wrong. I've seen him do it, and I was totally impressed. People like that figure stuff out. People who don't want to learn about bugs in their thinking go through life with a lot of bugs. Today, and beyond, everyone has great tools for saying what they think. If you can't stand to hear it, you're not going to like the future very much, sorry to say.

I replaced the Google-based search tool in the right margin with one from Lijit.

Lijit Search

I found the Google one took up too much space, and I couldn't easily configure it, I never used it, and I grimaced every time I saw it (it felt like an eyesore).

Let's see if this one works better, it sure looks better.

dnormant writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that more than a dozen states are gearing up to sue the Bush administration for holding up efforts to regulate automobile emissions. "The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies. On Wednesday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, part of a broader plan among 10 Northeastern states, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to move beyond federal regulators in Washington and regulate such emissions on their own."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The so-called "Austin Mayor" says:

Sen. Barack Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Link

Microsoft just bought 1.6% of cool glow for 240 million dollars from the current darling of social networks, Facebook. That priced the latter at $15,000,000,000 or five hundred times expected earnings for 2007!

Now I actually really like Facebook. It’s clean, the guys running it are smart, and tons of people I know are really into it. They got a great audience, growing fast, and all that jazz. But an evaluation of five hundred times earnings?! If that doesn’t taste like bubble gum, I don’t know what does.

Facebook is certainly to be commended for getting as high an evaluation as they can. Bravo to them. They look like masterminds here. But what does Microsoft look like?

A 500x evaluation doesn’t exactly position them as financially shrewd. No, it feels like they’re trying to make a statement that they too can hang with the cool kids regardless of the cost. Regardless of even an obscene cost.

I think Microsoft would be wise to remember that trying to buy cool has a tendency of making you look even more like a dork. I guess they have to try something — anything — to improve their image to investors, entrepreneurs, future employees, and the media.

Maybe that’s also what’s behind the previous hoopla about Microsoft looking at companies heavily involved with open source software. CNet even pitched that we’d make the perfect candidate for that run.

In any case, you’d think that there’d be more critical coverage of this transaction in light of eBay’s write-down of the Skype purchase. In comparison, eBay’s buy looked like a steal. They got a cool media darling with current revenues of $400 million/year for just $2.6 billion a few years ago.

But that’s exactly the opposite of the story being played in some quarters. Reuters frames it as Microsoft beats Google. No they didn’t. Google beat Microsoft with a goading stick and got them to buy-in at bubble gum numbers. It’s Google and Facebook laughing all the way to the bank, not Microsoft.

Nrbelex writes to mention The New York Times is reporting that Microsoft has beat out Google and Yahoo for a 1.6% stake in Facebook. The investment will cost Microsoft $240 million valuing the total site at somewhere around $15 billion. "The astronomical valuation for Facebook is primarily evidence that Microsoft executives believed they could not afford to lose out on the Facebook deal. Google appears to be building a dominant position in the race to serve advertisements online. Fearing it might lose control over the next generation of computer users, Microsoft has been attempting to match and in some cases block Google's plans, even if that effort is costly."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.