Starship Asterisk*

alter-ego wrote:Is it the APOD URL?

BMAONE23 wrote:
Perhaps, now that the link leads to todays APOD rather than itself anymore,
traffic in this thread will (and has) come to a skreeching halt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screech-owl wrote:

Eastern Screech Owl, Megascops asio Rufous morph

---

<<Screech owls or Screech-owls are typical owls (Strigidae) belonging to the genus Megascops. Twenty-one living species are known at present, but new ones are frequently recognized and unknown ones are still being discovered on a regular basis, especially in the Andes. For most of the 20th century, this genus was merged with the Old World scops owls in Otus, but nowadays it is again considered separate based on a range of behavioral, biogeographical, morphological and DNA sequence data.

Screech owls are restricted to the Americas. As usual for owls, female screech owls are usually larger and fatter than the males of their species, with owls of both sexes being compact in size, shape, and height. The Eastern Screech Owl Megascops asio is one of the smallest species of owls in North America. All of the birds in this genus are small and agile. Screech owls are generally colored in various brownish hues with usually a whitish, patterned underside, which helps to camouflage them against the bark of trees. Some are polymorphic, occurring in a grayish- and a reddish-brown morph.

A screech owl fossil from the Late Pliocene of Kansas indicates a longstanding presence of these birds in the Americas, while coeval scops owl fossils very similar to the Eurasian Scops Owl have been found at S'Onix on Majorca. The scops and screech owl lineage probably evolved at some time during the Miocene (like most other genera of typical owls), and the three modern lineages separated perhaps roughly 5 million years ago. Like almost all scops and screech owls today, their common ancestor was in all probability already a small owl, with ear tufts and at least the upper tarsus ("leg") feathered.>>

captwiggins wrote:Please remind people that those fantastic, colorful pictures of galaxies, nebulae, etc., are time exposures. They do not portray the actual object as it appears from earth.

Chris Peterson wrote:
if you restrict the word to human vision, the Universe "appears" to be a pretty boring place!

bystander wrote:

Just Me wrote:Wow, what a bunch of winers! Are you people always like this?

BigSwifty wrote:I'm shocked at the outpouring of negative sentiments regarding this APOD. Its an attempt at mixing things up and is one photo out of a vast gallery of outstanding astronomical wonders. Your brilliant images with informative explanations are a one of the few things I look forward to on a daily basis. So rather than berate the effort because of one seemingly lack-luster post, I want to thank everyone responsible for the APOD, day in and day out for outstanding material that never ceases to amaze me.

jridley wrote:Yeah, I too am upset that the stuff I get for free doesn't meet my expectations. I deserve that you work to give me interesting content every day forever for no cost.

Geeze oh man wrote:O.K. people, I think its time for a reality check. The truth is that APOD is one of the very finest web pages on the internet today. It certainly harks back to a better time when the internet was free from the onslaught of advertising madness. Don't be one of those "Ya, but what have you done for me lately?" people. APOD could post a pic of Alfred E. Numan all week long, and still be tops in my book. I think todays story was an interesting tidbit, and is quite worth my while in my book. Anything that is perfect all the time is a bit boring; how else would you know when an APOD pic needs to become your next new PC wallpaper? Lighten up.