Starship Asterisk*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Addams_Family wrote:
<<Another member of the family is seen in the form of a disembodied hand named "Thing". Thing has been Gomez's friend since childhood. He (it is implied that he is male) often performs common, everyday tasks such as retrieving the mail, writing a letter or just giving a friendly pat on the shoulder, appearing out of ubiquitous boxes or other convenient containers throughout the house. He communicates with Addamses with a Morse-like alphabet, sign language, writing, and knocking on wood. In the movies and The New Addams Family Thing was a fully mobile hand, cleanly severed just below the wrist (although no muscle or bone is exposed). In the original sitcom, Thing is severed just below the elbow (In the TV series, the lower arm was often seen). He lives in an upstairs closet made up as a house-within-a-house, though he is also shown to reside in a cigar box. In the original TV series, Thing was generally played by Ted Cassidy (the actor who played Lurch). He was usually a right hand, but Cassidy occasionally used his left, "just to see if anyone noticed".>>

DavidLeodis wrote:Just in case it has not been spotted there is a clerical error in the explanation to this APOD (at least there was up to when I posted this!). Part of a line states "estimated distance of NGC 1313". The last part should read NGC 1333. Part of the text in the line is a link to information on NGC 1333, so I feel confident that it should read NGC 1333 not NGC 1313.

neufer wrote:

DavidLeodis wrote:Just in case it has not been spotted there is a clerical error in the explanation to this APOD (at least there was up to when I posted this!). Part of a line states "estimated distance of NGC 1313". The last part should read NGC 1333. Part of the text in the line is a link to information on NGC 1333, so I feel confident that it should read NGC 1333 not NGC 1313.

Why is David Leodis so discombobulated?

Usually, APOD's this topsy-turvy result from a recent collision with a neighboring APOD.

Continued numerical modeling of numbers like 1313 & 1333 might shed some light on this unusual situation.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap061128.html

DavidLeodis wrote:Just in case it has not been spotted there is a clerical error in the explanation to this APOD (at least there was up to when I posted this!). Part of a line states "estimated distance of NGC 1313". The last part should read NGC 1333. Part of the text in the line is a link to information on NGC 1333, so I feel confident that it should read NGC 1333 not NGC 1313.

It's an excellent picture.

DavidLeodis wrote:I've noticed that the error has now been corrected.

bystander wrote:

DavidLeodis wrote:I've noticed that the error has now been corrected.

I sent your post in a PM to Dr. Nemiroff.