Slashdot Mirror
Newly Discovered Young Galaxy Creates 4,000 Stars Per Year
Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have found a galaxy producing an average of up to 4,000 stars per year. They contrast this with the Milky Way, which only produces an average of 10 each year. Nicknamed "Baby Boom," it is a young starburst galaxy, and its stellar birth rate conflicts with a commonly accepted model for the growth of a galaxy. Quoting:
"'The question now is whether the majority of the very most massive galaxies form very early in the universe like the Baby Boom galaxy, or whether this is an exceptional case. Answering this question will help us determine to what degree the Hierarchical Model of galaxy formation still holds true,' [said Peter Capak of NASA's Spitzer Science Center] 'The incredible star-formation activity we have observed suggests that we may be witnessing, for the first time, the formation of one of the most massive elliptical galaxies in the universe,' said co-author Nick Scoville of Caltech, the principal investigator of the Cosmic Evolution Survey,
Sorry.
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
"Rare 'Star-Making Machine' Found in Distant Universe" is the title of it, on NASA's website. The first paragraph makes it clear that it's intended to be "in the distant reaches of the universe," but it's still strange phrasing. Really got my hopes up there for a bit.
Also, to be more specific, this Galaxy was creating 4,000 stars per year 12.3 Billion years ago, when the universe was only 1.3 Billion years old. Also, they don't know the number to be 4,000 stars: it's in the range of 1,000 to 4,000 stars per year, based on how bright it is.
Everything is subjective.
If general relativity says that a clock ticks faster the deeper it is in a gravity well, and at the beginning of the universe all that matter was closer together, maybe time just flew faster for star formation. Was the value of "year" used in the article, to put a new spin on an old phrase, adjusted for inflation?
Older galaxies are outsourcing their star production needs to this one.
That's faster than American Idol!
Have gnu, will travel.
"My God, it's full of stars!"
-- Boycott Shell
If I read the article right, this would seem to say that we are witnessing this galaxy forming approximately 12.3 billion light years ago. As to the answer of whether or not this galaxy is exceptional, I guess the most interesting answer may be if this galaxy is 'currently' producing stars at the same rate as the Milky Way (~10 per year). Unfortunately, the only way I can see to figure that out is to wait another 12.3 billion years. I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting stocking up on beer now.
They contrast this with the Milky Way, which only produces an average of 10 each year.
I live in the most boring galaxy!
The Kepler Satellite Team is rejoicing
Amazing!!! I believe the meaning of this is called progress. For every theory we disprove, we become a little more wiser. I am all for a renaissance of the mind! Congratulations!
Social Security to be bust in 3 generations.
President announces plan to stem the growth of illegal star migration by building a giant wall between neighboring galaxies.
More at 10.
It's only delaying the inevitable...
3. Profit!
2. ???
1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
Creating 4,000 Stars per year? Why that's more than Hollywood! With all this far outsourcing, does that mean Brittney, Paris and Lindsay will soon be out of jobs? Those damn illegal aliens!
Yes one star for every 2 hours and change... All life in that galaxy is probably fly based. In the relativity theory you could say that an hour in our galaxy is relative to a couple of bilion years over there.. But in all fairness: finally those shows that try to relate the lifetime of earth to a 12 hours period are outdone by a galaxy.
maybe there are several gravity wells between our galaxy and the other one that accelerates light at such a pace that we are seeing the whole history of that galaxy at once.
Wasn't there a post here recently that spoke of the speed of light having been faster in the past? Which would mean that the maximum speed of light is not a constant, and can thus be accelerated.
"My God, it's full of used diapers!"
Table-ized A.I.
The reason is obvious: God wasted too much time dealing with those troublesome Milky Way sinners and got behind on galaxy construction. To catch up, he has to crank up the speed.
Table-ized A.I.
Either it's producing UP TO 4000 stars or it's producing AN AVERAGE of 4000 stars, surely?
That's just Spore going through beta testing. Nothing to see here, move along.
Hasn't this galaxy heard of CONTRACEPTIVES?
...we've found Magrathea.
As long as we're all making stupid remarks about this story, why not consider the ultimate crazy theory: Perhaps this galaxy has been colonized by a near-Type-III civilization which is manufacturing new stars to power their technologies. What other kinds of astronomical signatures would you expect to see if this were the case?
It took God a whole day to create our sun. Now he's creating them somewhere else at a rate of 11 per day. Did the homosexuals piss Him off again or something?
The distance to M31 is 2.54 +/- .06 mega light-years. Use the metric prefix "mega", which is unambiguous and is specified in the wikipedia entry for the Andromeda Galaxy. It always means "* 10^6". The distance to M31 is ~2.54*10^6 light years. This is called "million" under both the long and short scales. Any confusion on the word "billion" is between 10^9 (short scale meaning) and 10^12 (long scale meaning, since 10^9 is "milliard").
Therefore:
Actually, I am using the Euro standard while you are using the U.S one.
This is spurious. The systems mean the same thing by "million".
[Who] says that we aren't already colliding with Andromeda galaxy ? After all, the light we are getting is 2.5 million years old at current time.
The photons we are now seeing, which show M31 2.5*10^6 light years distant, left that position 2.5 million years ago (by either naming convention). In order for M31 to arrive at the Milky Way before those photons, it would have to travel faster than them and overtake them. This would be true for *any* distance, including 1, 10^6, or 10^9 light years or any other. It's not possible for matter to travel at the speed of light.
So although M31 has changed since the present image of it began the journey, it has not overtaken that image and beaten it to us.
I wonder if that galaxy is as neurotic as Kate Gosselin is? Do I lose my geek card for loving that show?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Most theories are wrong or partly wrong.
We will never know the truth until we can go out there an see whats 'currently' going on.
Maybe in a few thousand years...so keep this thread active so it can be updated in a few millennia. 8)
And time is slower the higher the gravity.
Gross.