There is a rule about punctuation I can’t bring myself to follow: “In the United States, commas and periods go inside the quotation marks”. I just broke it there.
The rule I follow is that everything inside the quotation marks is part of the quote:
Here is a quoted fragment of text: “a quoted fragment of text:”.
The “:” inside the quotes is part of what is quoted. The “.” defines the sentence structure.
A. The final “word”.
B. The final “word.”
B looks strange to me — the period is part of the sentence structure, not part of the quoted text, so B is a sentence without its final period. It should be
B. The final “word.”.
if you want to quote
What about even stranger cases:
Brian flew to a place in the clouds where punctuation marks included “%$^&”.
I think like this because of long exposure to computer languages, where the syntax rules are much more regular. You can always distinguish between the syntactically live use of punctuation and syntactically lifeless punctuation inside quotes. Any text can be unambiguously quoted.
English usage is like a woodland path — it is where it is because that’s where people walked. For many years I walked somewhere else, and I’m very comfortable there.
A colorful mosaic; an extreme magnification of an image of space at the edge of a galaxy. Two prominent stars, some bright spots that are probably just defects in the sensor, or maybe where a cosmic ray hit and produced a single bright flash. Mostly, this is just visual noise.
Here’s a different version, where the individual pixels have been smoothed:
A prettified instantaneous snapshot of the quantum noise roiling across the sensor. Perhaps if I could make a movie, these would be tiny agitated multicolored ripples. But the two stars would remain, hard reminders of a real world, and the brightness at the right edge would also remain, testifying to that galaxy — M108, I’ve heard — off-screen to the right.
Edit: I’ve since discovered that one of those stars must be an image-processing artifact. So much for reality.
My plan was simple — over a period of number of days, take a picture of the sky where my telescope thought Neptune would be, stack the images, and find a line of dots against the fixed stars. Didn’t work.
There are 4 sub-images (“subs”, in the lingo), taken on 09/15, 09/21, 10/03, and 10/10. 25 days.
Here’s the partially processed stack, straight from the computer. Note that you select one of the subs as a reference, then try to fit the others on top. This is a full frame, 3.5×2.5 degrees in the sky:
I find this image aesthetically pleasing, though it is disconcerting that the 4 subs were so far from alignment. Somehow I thought the tracking software in my rig would do a better job. But in any case… Neptune takes 165 years to make a trip around the sun — 360 degrees in 165 years, or about 2.2 degrees a year. That’s about .006 degrees a day, or around 20″/day, on average, or an arcminute every 3 days. So, maybe 6-7 minutes over 25 days? A little less than half a cm on my screen, that would be.
Because of Earth’s motion around the sun, Neptune stops, then goes retrograde for a while, every year, and I don’t know where we are in this cycle. So maybe it didn’t move at all. I could probably get Stellarium to show me, but for the time being I’ll chalk it up as a failed experiment that gave me a pretty picture.
I believe the elephant’s trunk is dangling down from the upper middle. This is a composite of 100 2-minute exposures; processed with Pixinsight and Gimp. Better pictures taken by more experienced amateurs with better equipment can be seen here. The full field of view here is actually known as IC 1396, and it’s part of a much larger complex. Here’s a great view of the whole complex.
There is a bright star dead center. You can’t tell in this image, but that is a group of at least three stars. Here’s the center at full resolution:
This is the combined image; once you know what you are looking for the center star does look a bit suspicious.
Here’s the center without the nebulosity, from a single 2-minute exposure:
One star is clearly separated, and there is a hint of another in the lower right. Other exposures show that split more clearly. This is at the limit of the resolution of my telescope.