Slashdot Mirror
The Humble Space Telescope
frank249 writes " How would you like to do your own astronomy research with a space-based telescope? Sounds unlikely? Perhaps today, since there's only one available, and NASA has it booked pretty solid. However, this is about to change. The Canadian Space Agency just signed a contract to launch Canada's first space telescope, is scheduled to be launched in October 2002. If successful, millions of astronomers worldwide will have access to a more humble version of NASA's Hubble via the internet. It is scheduled to be launched in October 2002 as part of a multiple payload mission from Plesetsk, Russia, on an SS-19 based launch vehicle called Rockot. The SS-19 was supposed to be destroyed as part of an Arms reduction treaty so why not get some use out of it?" And it's so cute, it looks like mod furniture.
Diapers rule!
mg
You can get an hour for a bowl of poutine and a few strips of back-bacon.
Fair warning, of course, this is just a small part of the grand Canadian master plan to take over the world.
Don't know too much eh ?
Saint-Hubert, Quebec, November 20, 2001 - The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and Eurockot Launch Services of Bremen, Germany, today announced the signing of a Launch Service Agreement for Canada's MOST (Microvariability & Oscillations of STars) microsatellite.MOST, carrying Canada's first space telescope, is scheduled to be launched in October 2002 as part of a multiple payload mission from Plesetsk, Russia, on an SS-19 based launch vehicle called Rockot.
"MOST is a unique and exciting space astronomy mission involving Canadian government, scientists and industry," said Mr. Barry Wetter, Director General of the CSA's Space Science Branch. "The signing of this launch agreement with Eurockot is a major step toward seeing this project to fruition."
The MOST project uses innovative Canadian technology to enable a cost-effective space science mission involving a small telescope no bigger in diameter than a pie plate, carried on a microsatellite about the size of a small suitcase. The total weight is only 60 kilograms.The telescope will help set a limit on the age of the Universe and probe the properties of planets around other stars.
Funded and managed by the CSA's Space Science Branch under its Small Payloads Program, the MOST project is a co-operative Canadian scientific partnership. Dynacon Enterprises Limited of Mississauga, Ontario, is the prime contractor. The telescope is being developed by the University of British Columbia (UBC) while the satellite is being assembled at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS). Other key partners include the Centre for Research in Earth and Space Technology (CRESTech) of Toronto, Spectral Applied Research of Concord, Ontario, the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) and the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC).The Principal Investigator, Prof. Jaymie Matthews of UBC, leads a team of scientists from across Canada, the United States and Austria.
The Canadian Space Agency is providing $8.5 million to fund the development of the satellite and ground control station, the launch and operations. An additional $1.2 million in support to UTIAS was provided by the Ontario government through its Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund.
Gnuyen
The Following people are fucking bastards!
[EMPTY]
If you annoy me then you will be added to the list! List updated every day!
$ Version 0.0.1 $
Of course it's humble you dolts, it's Canadian!!
Thank you.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
--
"Remember, any tool can be the right tool." -- Red Green
"from the again-canadians-show-us-how dept."
Yeah, we Americans are a useless lot. We've shown the world nothing...
Ah, well, there is Slashdot. A self-coded site that crashes regularly, has self-hating, righteous, illiterate editors that double-post with regularity and do about as much fact checking as your average Arabian newspaper. And it's run by Americans.
You may have a point, you complete fucking jackass.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Oh, and did I hear "scientific" space telescope? Well, space telescope, orbital missile defence platform, same thing, right?
The rest of the world will soon learn the virtues of putting cheese curds on french fries! BWAHAHAHA!
I heard they are going to have to keep it in geo-sync orbit with Canada so they can finally begin studying Celine Dion's giant camel toe.
BOSTON SUCKS!
There's a very obvious problem when transferring any book to the big screen, namely that some of us may already have seen it. It's not that the story holds no surprises (save for the occasional controversies that surround the fate of characters like Hannibal Lecter), it's just that many of us have already read the book, and thus we've already directed our own version of the story. We've already seen it in our mind's eye. And this is the problem that plagues The Fellowship of The Ring. You'll see a lot of reviews here proclaiming it as nothing short of the second coming of cinema, and a few that dare to knock its serious shortcomings. Let me clear this up right now. The first issue that many may raise is that this is not a faithful adaptation of the book. Quite right, while taking pains to ensure that they stayed faithful to the novel, Jackson et al have not simply been able to lift their screenplay directly from its pages without a few necessary changes. There is a great deal of mindfulness in the film about the portion of the audience (and it will be large) who are unfamiliar with the novels. Accordingly a great deal more emphasis has been placed upon pacing and storytelling more appropriate to a classic film narrative. Hence we need to see Gandalf's protracted bid to escape the clutches of Isenguard interspersed with the Hobbit's journey to Rivendell. It simply isn't appropriate to expect an audience to bear with the Hobbits' journey, no matter how good the actors are or how enthralling the story is, for upwards of an hour without constant reminders of the films other protagonists OR the threat of the evil they face. Having Gandalf just turn up at Rivendell and tell his story via CGI-filled flashbacks simply wouldn't have had the necessary effect. Secondly, the omission and reworking of characters. Yes, it was sad that Bakshi felt his animation didn't need Tom Bombadill, and given that he features strongly in Tolkien's other works this has to be frowned upon by the die-hard fanatics, but introducing diverting, but ultimately pointless episodes into the list of the challenges the Hobbits face is hardly going to keep you riveted to your seat is it? I mean, a man who stops the Hobbits being eaten, very slowly, by a tree with his power of song is just quite frankly ludicrous in this day and age. The film is already stretching the audience's suspension of disbelief as far as it can go. Hence the chaff of Bombadill is cut. He isn't relevant to the rest of the story so he can be done without. It's sad for Tolkien fans for him not to be there but there's only so much celluloid available, even with a film this long. And yes, Arwen Undomiel never saved Frodo from the Dark Riders, but please, remember your girlfriend needs to have something to sink her teeth into as well, not just midgets and men with beards looking mean or scared as they fight monsters. So, for gender representation and a bid to prevent half the potential market (please remember that like all film, this is a product to be packaged and sold) her character gets a drastic overhaul. Go sister! There are numerous other issues relevant to the faithfulness of the adaptation from novel to screenplay but please, let's be content with what we've got here. It's a hard task to do all this well and Jackson, along with the rest of the boys and girls at Wingnut and WETA, should be commended for what they have achieved. That said there are some definite flaws in the film, even those that can't be overlooked by justifying the needs to relate to the popcorn and nachos audience. Firstly, we've got the Fellowship itself. Now, Merry and Pippin, while not really being established as Frodo's friends and thus not having the same kind of bond with him as they do in the novel are moderately well integrated. However, at the arrival of Boromir, Gimili and Legolas we just get left in the dark. None of these three characters, all representing important races, cultures and locations of the world of Middle Earth are given no more than token arrival-shots to introduce them, and little or no back-story as to how they came to be where they are or why they feel compelled to join Frodo's quest. Offering their various weapons is noble, and it sounds fantastic in the trailer, but when we finally get down to it we just don't know who they are or what they're about. Accordingly we don't ever really have time to care about any of these three, save for Legolas whose fighting proficiency alone makes him stand out. Sadly, Sean Bean is allowed little more than to switch from foreboding bad guy to friendly companion and back again (thus betraying his characters ultimate fate from the first time he opens his mouth) and John Rhys Davis is left with little more to do than scowl and look short. It doesn't help that both these characters seem to get a pretty raw deal for screen time, especially Gimli, who is barely in the film at all. We won't even begin to go into the seemingly superficial relationship we see between Sam and Frodo. All of this is indeed a shame. The film's greatest strength after its story are its strong characters. However, whereas in the book they have the space to develop and flesh themselves out here they have little more to do than look in awe at Gandalf, perhaps not with a humble air so much as a wonder that he's being allowed to soak up all the screen time. And yes, what you've heard is true; the fight sequences are shockingly bad. Well, perhaps that IS an overstatement. The fight sequences aren't exactly bad, they're riddled with good ideas and clever moves, but the camerawork and editing is so erratic that you'll have a hard time picking out anything to inspire awe or respect. The problem here is that the benchmarks for on screen fighting have all been established nowadays by The Matrix, Crouching Tiger and The Phantom Menace, and all of these films use lengthy shots to allow us to soak up the fight imaginative fight choreography, rather than have us crane our necks and dart about the screen with our eyeballs trying to glimpse it like a rare bird or nipple-flash at a premiere. Now, these, yet again, are only a few of the problems. There's the geography of Middle Earth, some ropey special effects moments and the clumsy ending to deal with. But you can read the books and see the film for yourself; I've already typed enough about all that here. BUT, now that I've just spent the main chunk of this review telling you about the shortcomings of The Fellowship of the Rings as both a movie and an adaptation let me tell you, it is good, exceptionally good. There is no denying that the storyline itself, acting, effects, props, sets and so on and so forth are all spot on. Visually the film is a triumph and WETA has now, without question placed itself ahead of Industrial Light and Magic in terms of industry leading special effects. There are bags of style to proceedings, with some sequences displaying the sheer amount of vision of the whole team to bring somewhat vague sections of the novel to life. All parts are played to perfection by the cast, and the casting is literally some of the best and most appropriate seen in years, none of this who-hot-and-who's-not Jerry Bruckheimer trash, it's a case of the best possible person for the part at every stage of the film. We'll give particular credit to Sir Ian Mckellan, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm and Elijah Wood again here. No doubt they've had scores of favourable and loving reviews already but these performances truly are worth mentioning just once again. The film is a masterpiece from start to finish. Yes, it does take perseverance, no it's not entirely faithful to Tolkien's work and there are some serious flaws, but in a year that has been so barren of even five decent mainstream movies I think it's safe to say that no matter when this film had been released it would have outshone its competitors.
Come on guys, while humility is one of the christmas virtues space telescopes ain't.
Instead of using the internet and sitting alone in front of your computer you should sit around a christmas tree with friends and do a singsong a eat some roasted goose.
So get some priorities and change your life !
Get your poles and speak out your grievances here.
Rockot? Rawkawt!
My complaint about John Ashcroft:
May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with Ashcroft's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Ashcroft, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Ashcroft to put mephitic thoughts in our children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master. As for the lies and exaggerations, Ashcroft's epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Ashcroft is going to obstruct important things, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a true enemy is better than a false friend. And second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.
Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Ashcroft's slurs symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude that Ashcroft is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude that Ashcroft has a different view of reality from the rest of us. In either case, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. His historical record of fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, if we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed, corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Even Ashcroft's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of Ashcroft's refrains. That's why they created "Ashcroft-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Ashcroft knows he has something to hide. Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that Ashcroft's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Ashcroft's warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.