Saturn's rings from shadows
Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.
Would be nice if the pictures actually displayed in the browser for me. They don't work in Firefox or Chrome; I click the images, the arrows, nothing happens (even the "sign in" button doesn't work in Firefox). WTH.
My ideal desktop is a plain single colour background. That way the icons are all clearly visible and I can lay them out in groups to make them easy to find for me without having to avoid a particularly bright bit of "wallpaper". However, I do very much like the pictures supplied. If I want to look at pictures or listen to music, I do just that, and only that in order to do justice to the pictures or music. To me having a picture as a background or having background music playing are minor irritants as they, particularly music, distract me from what I'm trying to concentrate on. I know there are those who don't seem to be able to exist without some sort of background, so I'm not proposing my idea as something for all, just expressing an opinion, but it would be interesting to do a survey to find how many are like me and how many have the opposite viewpoint. Now an admission - I do have a wallpaper image on my desktop! However, it's predominantly black with a quarter of the moon occupying the centre third of my monitors but all my icons are on the plain black areas.
Thanks, After gathering a bunch of these, I make a slide show that looks pretty cool, some are small, but the ones that are bigger are bigger on the screen and Awesome, I realize these are mostly wallpaper, but they are so Cool,,,,
Thanks for sharing! These photos are outstanding. I looked through similar pictures on the Nasa Site.
The article says desktop images - their resolution does not qualify them to be so unless the authors are playing fast and loose with the term desktop images. This is clearly deceptive even if your so-called desktop is a Kindle (because the small res Kindle is not a desktop).
One foot=1000 light years. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110118.html
My own desktop is frequently the Hubble Deep Field http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/hubble_deep_field/ or the galaxy in Andromeda http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0210/Andromeda_gendler_sm.jpg (or a similar image; not sure that's the right one).
Go to Astronomy Picture of the Day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/lib/aptree.html An outstanding, free site. With explanations that a layman can understand.
Wow, thanks! It was simply great to get up this morning and look at these images before headed out to work. Kind of put a perspective on things. Wonderful post, thanks again!
You know, it just comes down to the same old question...WTF is it all about? We are so small and insignificant below the stars. Some will say these photographs prove there is a god, others might say it proves there isn't. For what being could create such immensity? Such startling beauty, such inexplicable mystery?
Thank you. Thank you TechRepublic...these images are stunning beyond words. Thank you as well for bringing NASA back into public attention.
@libwebdev Try downloading the image in your downloads then you can put it on your desktop.
Also, we are amongst the stars, not below them. I wouldn't call this the "same" old question, but rather the "age" old question. It is our unique place amongst all of this, which can support life, that makes me believe in a creator/designer.
Otherwise the jpg format is really zip for images, so it would be counter productive to provide individual zip files of each image. Since these are but a mere sampling of what is available, I'd suggest you follow the links provided in both the image captions as well in the posts and select your favorites to download.
And if created by a being, creator or designer, where did the being, creator or designer come from?????????
After reading all the posts about creating a .zip file of all these images, or of each image, either way, I'm reminded of a classroom of children arguing at a fieldtrip! Yes, some of you make very good points, and to the starter of this discussion, it is not hard going through the images and getting what images you want, once you get the images, you can easily create your own .zip file of them if you have Windows XP or higher.
I don't want a zip file of each rather a zip containing all images. Besides, this site provided the info, and if I have a legitimate request, they should consider it. I didn't ask them to publish this, and I don't appreciate you being such an obnoxious geek.
[i]God has reveled Himself to us humans through His inerrant Word, which we call the Bible.[/i] You DO adhere to Leviticus? You do not shave? You do not eat pork, shellfish or any non-kosher foods? You sacrifice calves, lambs, and kids, and make burnt offerings using the procedures outlined therein? [i]...if you want to maintain your personal disbelief...[/i] Where do I state I do not believe? Or is the problem that I do not believe as you?
Otherwise, you must believe that all of those "inspired by a true story" movies are accurate in detail. "Inspired by" means that someone else imparted an idea, but a man put ink to paper. Thus, claiming the bible was written by god is a fallacy. You are simply wrong as evidenced by your own citation unless you are claiming that god possessed those men and wrote the words himself. Forcibly causing someone to do what you want in that way sounds an awful lot like rape. I don't think I care to follow a rapist deity. You also talk about the unchanging nature of god. I'll buy that. I agree that god, himself, is likely unchanging. However, these inspired teachings clearly do change with time. If you actually believe that god possessed the human authors of the bible to cause them to write his words, then you live in heresy by NOT adhering to the strictures noted previously. If you DON'T believe that god possessed those men to write the words, then why are you arguing for that point of view? In the end, the modern bible has little to do with the original texts owing to all kinds of translation errors, both deliberate and otherwise. Because of organized religion's stubborn insistence on continuing with the available translations, those original errors have become canon. To wit, check up on baptism, sometime. That's a fun one. If you wish to believe in godly possession and such, that's fine. I find it disheartening that the christian community expects the rest of us to drink that koolaid.
Nick, 2 Timothy 2:16 states that ?all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness? James 1:17, last half states ?Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.? From these 2 verses the Bible states that it is written (inspired) by God. Not by man, although men were the instruments used by God to accomplish the actual writing, but what was written was directed (inspired) by God. And then the second verse here shows that God does not change. So if homosexual acts were disgusting to God in the Old Testament, those acts are still disgusting to God. As far as Michael Coogan goes, he has taken some very broad strokes with no support. He stated ?inconsistencies are frequent in the Bible, both trivial and profound.? Just because he has these Bible ?teaching? jobs, a sweeping statement like that needs some backup. And for every ?inconsistency? he can state, we can explain where he is wrong. God has reveled Himself to us humans through His inerrant Word, which we call the Bible. Jesus referred to it often, Peter who was one of the disciples that saw Jesus transfigured on the mountain, stated the written word (Bible) is better than his experience of seeing Jesus transfigured (2 Peter 1:16-21). Peter ends that passage by stating that ?no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. If someone approaches the Bible as a book written by men, and is not looking for God?s words in it, that is normally exactly what he will find, because his mind is already made up. But if he comes to the Bible with an open mind, looking for God, God will personally reveal Himself to that individual. If you want to read someone?s account of finding God in the Bible, read ?New Evidence that Demands a Verdict? by Josh McDowell. Or, if you want to maintain your personal disbelief, God has given you that right. But He did have His Son die on the cross that you might know God, and know that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.
You adhere to the strictures in Leviticus? Consider the words of this Harvard divinity professor: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/26/coogan.bible.family.values/index.html
Where did the creator/designer come from? He has told us, "I AM." I AM meaning the "Great, Self-existent One." But of course the same question can be asked, where did the material come from that we are made of? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and His Son, Jesus the Christ, has reveled Himself to us in the Bible. If you really think the Bible is a "man made" religion, you need to be open minded enough to at least do some study of the Bible and you can then see how completely different the relationship that God wants to have with you is, than the "please accept me" religions that are truly man made religions. Mock if you wish/must, but the answers are already recorded for you to study in the Bible.
Eternity - God is eternal. There is no way we can possibly grasp that - and if we did, we'd be gods! God transcends matter anyway, which is the only context we understand in terms of a created whatever. So it's like the question, "Can God make a rock heavier than He can lift?" That's supposed to trip up the concept of God, because either answer makes God less than God. God transends matter in all it's forms with its weight/density, etc. - so, like the original question, it is irrelevant. This isn't a cop out - it is the very nature of God... which entails, again, a lot we will never comprehend. Which is probably good, since it might freak us out!
Oh, sorry, I said "below" the stars, when I meant to say, "We are so small between the stars, so large against the sky, and lost among the subway crowds I try to catch your eye." Semantics, semantics. Okay, we are amongst the stars. Irrelevant, perhaps, but no more so than any speculation about whether or not there is a creator. One thing I am pretty sure of, but, I could be wrong: if there is some "god" he, she, it has absolutely no resemblance to the infantile and illogical god of manmade religions. Yes, we can and no doubt will go on seeking answers to the questions we probably shouldn't bother asking, but to be so arrogant to think that at this point in our evolution (yes, I said evolution) that we have any answers is pure folly. And I might add, for all you religious folks, that your arrogant, illogical religions have held back our evolution for thousands of years, and just may, before long, bring about mankind's extinction. Unless solar flares beat you to it.
http://www.venganza.org/ But decided to take the question more seriously... :D
If I were to present all of the images in a single Zip file it would be a download and not a photo gallery. Without going into detail, I will say that a download is not how we present photo images.
You are not the first to make that request, nor will you be the last. We've been asking for years, but TR usually does not provide archives of photo gallery images for bulk download. On the other hand, if you didn't ask them to publish it, why is the manner of presentation or access even an issue?