Planets and Costumes

So, I'm trying to think of a Halloween costume. Here are my criteria, in order from strongest to least strong:

1. No wigs. Hats are okay, and makeup is okay, and I might even go for hair extensions, but I don't feel like putting down the money for a quality wig. (And I don't want to deal with a cheap wig -- someone else can tell the story about how Integra Hellsing suddenly developed short, dark hair because my cheap wig gave up the ghost around lunchtime of Day I of AnimeIowa)

2. Something I can wear to CJAS's cosplay contest. Which means anime or manga character. Maybe video game. Probably not anything from Western fandoms or webcomics.

3. Something that is recognizable as something* by the mundanes, in case I go out with my work friends, or decide to wear the costume to campus or something. By which, I mean, they might not recognize Kenshin Himura, but the sword and outfit look like 'samurai'.

* Something reasonably specific, not 'what the hell costume is that?'

( Current Ideas )

Also, I found this blog post by Mike Brown that pretty much sums up the whole planet debate. It makes the point that scientists had two classifications: 'round & geologically varied (plus the gas giants, which are round and atmospherically varied with interesting interiors)' versus 'not round and & impact-dominated geology' and 'single objects in distinct orbits' versus 'clouds of similar objects in similar orbits'. Both are useful, and a scientist might deal with one more than the other (a geologist cares more about the first, to the point of even throwing in moons, while a dynamicist the second), and asking 'which is a better classification scheme' is silly, because they are both good and useful things. The IAU wasn't asked that -- they were asked, which classification scheme should be used as planet versus not-a-planet. Which is really a judgment call.

I was thinking the same thing, but this post explains it better. I was thinking about it because I noticed Dr. Bell (Martian geologist) has a 'Save Pluto' bumper sticker pinned to his bulletin board. In retaliation (I assume), Dr. Margot (asteroid and Kuiper Belt dynamicist) put up a 'Save Pallas' sign on his bulletin board. (Guess what both of them think of the IAU's definition? Go on, guess.)

We also have a new official dwarf planet -- Pluto, Ceres and Eris can welcome Makemake (mah-keh-mah-keh) to their numbers. First dwarf planet named after a non-Greco-Roman god, also! (Makemake was the creation deity of Rapa Nui (aka Easter Island) -- Makemake was discovered near Easter, and informally called Easterbunny.)

Planets and Costumes

So, I'm trying to think of a Halloween costume. Here are my criteria, in order from strongest to least strong:

1. No wigs. Hats are okay, and makeup is okay, and I might even go for hair extensions, but I don't feel like putting down the money for a quality wig. (And I don't want to deal with a cheap wig -- someone else can tell the story about how Integra Hellsing suddenly developed short, dark hair because my cheap wig gave up the ghost around lunchtime of Day I of AnimeIowa)

2. Something I can wear to CJAS's cosplay contest. Which means anime or manga character. Maybe video game. Probably not anything from Western fandoms or webcomics.

3. Something that is recognizable as something* by the mundanes, in case I go out with my work friends, or decide to wear the costume to campus or something. By which, I mean, they might not recognize Kenshin Himura, but the sword and outfit look like 'samurai'.

* Something reasonably specific, not 'what the hell costume is that?'

( Current Ideas )

Also, I found this blog post by Mike Brown that pretty much sums up the whole planet debate. It makes the point that scientists had two classifications: 'round & geologically varied (plus the gas giants, which are round and atmospherically varied with interesting interiors)' versus 'not round and & impact-dominated geology' and 'single objects in distinct orbits' versus 'clouds of similar objects in similar orbits'. Both are useful, and a scientist might deal with one more than the other (a geologist cares more about the first, to the point of even throwing in moons, while a dynamicist the second), and asking 'which is a better classification scheme' is silly, because they are both good and useful things. The IAU wasn't asked that -- they were asked, which classification scheme should be used as planet versus not-a-planet. Which is really a judgment call.

I was thinking the same thing, but this post explains it better. I was thinking about it because I noticed Dr. Bell (Martian geologist) has a 'Save Pluto' bumper sticker pinned to his bulletin board. In retaliation (I assume), Dr. Margot (asteroid and Kuiper Belt dynamicist) put up a 'Save Pallas' sign on his bulletin board. (Guess what both of them think of the IAU's definition? Go on, guess.)

We also have a new official dwarf planet -- Pluto, Ceres and Eris can welcome Makemake (mah-keh-mah-keh) to their numbers. First dwarf planet named after a non-Greco-Roman god, also! (Makemake was the creation deity of Rapa Nui (aka Easter Island) -- Makemake was discovered near Easter, and informally called Easterbunny.)

Where's my flying car?

I can't seem to get the hang of posting on one topic. Oh, well.

I played softball today. We had a grand total of six people show up, and we got our butts kicked. Though not as badly as we could. I still am batting 0.000, unless you count the time I got on second by fielding error. (League rules is if the opposing team throws the ball out of bounds, you can advance one extra base -- mostly to cover situations where the ball gets thrown into the bushes and it takes a bit to retrieve.) On the other hand, I'm getting better at fielding -- I managed to hold one to a double. I'm still hindered by my inability to throw hard enough to get it to the infield.

So, question for you all, blog. So, over on Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait posts a quote from Buzz Aldrin, where Buzz says that the unrealistic expectations created by science fiction makes people less interested in the real accomplishments of the space program. Phil disagreed -- he thinks that science fiction spurs us on and inspires us.

I'm biased -- I was a space nut before I learned how to tell SF from horror. Every time I saw the crew of the Enterprise beaming down to a planet, or read novels about imaginary moon colonies, I wanted to work all that more to go there. Or at least learn as much as I could about the real thing.

So, what do you all think?

Where's my flying car?

I can't seem to get the hang of posting on one topic. Oh, well.

I played softball today. We had a grand total of six people show up, and we got our butts kicked. Though not as badly as we could. I still am batting 0.000, unless you count the time I got on second by fielding error. (League rules is if the opposing team throws the ball out of bounds, you can advance one extra base -- mostly to cover situations where the ball gets thrown into the bushes and it takes a bit to retrieve.) On the other hand, I'm getting better at fielding -- I managed to hold one to a double. I'm still hindered by my inability to throw hard enough to get it to the infield.

So, question for you all, blog. So, over on Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait posts a quote from Buzz Aldrin, where Buzz says that the unrealistic expectations created by science fiction makes people less interested in the real accomplishments of the space program. Phil disagreed -- he thinks that science fiction spurs us on and inspires us.

I'm biased -- I was a space nut before I learned how to tell SF from horror. Every time I saw the crew of the Enterprise beaming down to a planet, or read novels about imaginary moon colonies, I wanted to work all that more to go there. Or at least learn as much as I could about the real thing.

So, what do you all think?