New? Seriously? One Thousand and One Nights has stories in stories in stories (in stories,...), with flashbacks and story-level spanning references and all.
It's roughly a thousand years old.
JWST is not a successor to the Hubble Telescope in any sensible way except for the fact
that they are both telescopes and both in space. JWST will look at infrared light between 600
and 28 000 nanometers, mostly way outside of the visible spectrum where Hubble makes its pictures.
We will learn a lot by those IR observations, that's for sure - but JWST does not replace Hubble, it
supplements it.
I really don't know how this "successor to Hubble" thing got started.
Note, by the way, that LLR returns are always exactly 1 photon per shot, so this flash was no fainter than any other LLR return.
"The large aperture of the telescope in combination with the good atmospheric "seeing" at the site has launched us into the regime of recording multiple returned laser photons per pulse"
(http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html)
Also, what you mean is what's detected from a return, not what actually returns - which is quite a bit more.
The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden and then implemented throughout the world wherever the PP has any power to do so.
I laughed out loud. Do you really believe that? That has to be one of the cutest attempts
to discredit anyone ever.
Well, there's some talk to Alice in Wonderland in the article. Alice in Wonderland is NOT in 3d. It's in semi-3d. So it leaves the experience somewhat lacking. How to Tame your Dragon. That's actually in 3d. Avatar, that's actually in 3d. Alice is the 'colorized' move of 3d.
Actually, as a nitpick: None of them are 3D, they are all just stereoscopic.
Everyone in the audience sees the same perspective regardless of their position.
This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.
Huh? Why? A good lobbyist better be aware of the stuff the competition is up to.
I still think that calling all those aircraft-that-just-don't-lift-off cars is cheating. Keeping them on
the ground is in itself quite a feat, I don't deny that at all - but to be called a car, they should be
propelled by their wheels' friction on the ground, not by jet engines and rockets.
I'm actually much more impressed by something like the Dieselmax, even if it is much slower.
Wouldn't it be a little more accurate to say that a colony of baby stars shed light on the Spitzer Telescope?
I would certainly hope so. Otherwise, the size of the light on the telescope needed for any meaningful lighting on that
scale would double as a very decent planet vaporizer over the range of a couple million kilometers. I wouldn't want that thing
orbiting anywhere near our solar system...
can you explain the "mbit/s" vs "Mbit/s" you have at the end of your post?
Sure - see SI prefixes:
- "m" stands for "milli", or 10^-3, i.e. a thousandth.
- "M" stands for "mega", or 10^6, i.e. a million.
Using m in a place where M is meant makes for an error of 10^9, or a billion.
This mistake is annoyingly common in everything IT related. I have no idea why.
I was under the impression that 5MB/s is 5 megabytes per second and 5Mb/s is 5 megabits per second.
Is this correct, am I wrong?
Yes and no, to both parts of the question:-) - The "bit vs. byte" issue is another one:
Often, "B" stands for bytes and "b" for bits. This is far from being universally used consistently
however, so I always write the full name of the unit I mean to eliminate this source of confusion.
It is just a fact: 1000 has no real meaning in the world of binary.
Of course it has: That's the number of bits in a byte.
And to your rant: Nobody is trying to impose the usage of base-10 units when dealing
with binary data on the "number of address lanes" level. Not even on the "file size" level.
What should stop is using SI prefixes to mean something other than their definition.
I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this. What kind of nerds exactly are you?
SI prefixes are defined as base-10, period. Every other use is simply wrong.
Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it better, it is just proof of
an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you didn't even make yourself.
As nerds, you're supposed to be better than that.
How can you be all for standards-compliance with browsers and rile against a much
stronger, decades-old ISO standard (which is based on a centuries old definition from the
beginning of the metric system - "kilo" has been 1000 for over 200 years)?
On the other hand, you are the same crowd regularly writing about "mbit/s" while meaning "Mbit/s",
thereby being off by just a tiny, unimportant, paltry factor of a billion.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?
These missions have now lasted years when they were expected to last 90 days.
They were never expected to last only 90 days - the initial(!) budget did only provide for
that mission length. It was fully expected to be extended.
The rovers being able to go for many years is indeed a bonus, proof of great engineering and in part
due to the unanticipated positive effect of the wind: it cleaned the solar panels instead of depositing dust.
But to state that "they were only expected to last for 90 days" is plain wrong.
*sigh* - no it's not. Do you think a prohibited group could have a big HQ building in Berlin? It is not considered a religion
though, and is under constant scrutiny by several federal and state agencies
for human rights violations, fraud, and other interesting things.
I'm reminded of Feynman on the Columbia commission.
Challenger. By the time Columbia went down (for - amongst other - similar reasons than Challenger),
Richard Feynman wasn't around anymore to see how little impact his statements had on NASA.
I've got to go back and hunt down the issue about the Russians having a Nuclear Powered Airplane, and that we were going to have our own in 18 months.
Well, the US military at least in fact had the technology: Project Pluto.
They just never flew it, because it would have irradiated large amounts of land. A rare victory for common sense at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
More of a technical issue ... how are the people in this "black market" going to handle the routing?
Tar. Routes don't get much blacker than that.
New? Seriously? One Thousand and One Nights has stories in stories in stories (in stories, ...), with flashbacks and story-level spanning references and all.
It's roughly a thousand years old.
JWST is not a successor to the Hubble Telescope in any sensible way except for the fact
that they are both telescopes and both in space. JWST will look at infrared light between 600
and 28 000 nanometers, mostly way outside of the visible spectrum where Hubble makes its pictures.
We will learn a lot by those IR observations, that's for sure - but JWST does not replace Hubble, it
supplements it.
I really don't know how this "successor to Hubble" thing got started.
Note, by the way, that LLR returns are always exactly 1 photon per shot, so this flash was no fainter than any other LLR return.
"The large aperture of the telescope in combination with the good atmospheric "seeing" at the site has launched us into the regime of recording multiple returned laser photons per pulse"
(http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html)
Also, what you mean is what's detected from a return, not what actually returns - which is quite a bit more.
The goals of the party are essentially dictated centrally from Sweden and then implemented throughout the world wherever the PP has any power to do so.
I laughed out loud. Do you really believe that? That has to be one of the cutest attempts
to discredit anyone ever.
Having in-depth knowledge doesn't make you a good teacher.
Completely true. However, a good teacher has in-depth knowledge of what he teaches.
Well, there's some talk to Alice in Wonderland in the article. Alice in Wonderland is NOT in 3d. It's in semi-3d. So it leaves the experience somewhat lacking. How to Tame your Dragon. That's actually in 3d. Avatar, that's actually in 3d. Alice is the 'colorized' move of 3d.
Actually, as a nitpick: None of them are 3D, they are all just stereoscopic.
Everyone in the audience sees the same perspective regardless of their position.
This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.
Huh? Why? A good lobbyist better be aware of the stuff the competition is up to.
*whew* /FiOS user
They don't need to hunt you down, they already know where the fiber ends...
I still think that calling all those aircraft-that-just-don't-lift-off cars is cheating. Keeping them on
the ground is in itself quite a feat, I don't deny that at all - but to be called a car, they should be
propelled by their wheels' friction on the ground, not by jet engines and rockets.
I'm actually much more impressed by something like the Dieselmax, even if it is much slower.
Without a human-capable spacecraft, astronauts won't get into space.
Now there's a shocker...
iPod-sized? Really? Which one? nano, mini, classic, touch, ...
How about some real measurement, like a pack of cards or fractions of a VW Beetle?
Wouldn't it be a little more accurate to say that a colony of baby stars shed light on the Spitzer Telescope?
I would certainly hope so. Otherwise, the size of the light on the telescope needed for any meaningful lighting on that
scale would double as a very decent planet vaporizer over the range of a couple million kilometers. I wouldn't want that thing
orbiting anywhere near our solar system...
can you explain the "mbit/s" vs "Mbit/s" you have at the end of your post?
Sure - see SI prefixes:
- "m" stands for "milli", or 10^-3, i.e. a thousandth.
- "M" stands for "mega", or 10^6, i.e. a million.
Using m in a place where M is meant makes for an error of 10^9, or a billion.
This mistake is annoyingly common in everything IT related. I have no idea why.
I was under the impression that 5MB/s is 5 megabytes per second and 5Mb/s is 5 megabits per second.
Is this correct, am I wrong?
Yes and no, to both parts of the question :-) - The "bit vs. byte" issue is another one:
Often, "B" stands for bytes and "b" for bits. This is far from being universally used consistently
however, so I always write the full name of the unit I mean to eliminate this source of confusion.
It is just a fact: 1000 has no real meaning in the world of binary.
Of course it has: That's the number of bits in a byte.
And to your rant: Nobody is trying to impose the usage of base-10 units when dealing
with binary data on the "number of address lanes" level. Not even on the "file size" level.
What should stop is using SI prefixes to mean something other than their definition.
I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this. What kind of nerds exactly are you?
SI prefixes are defined as base-10, period. Every other use is simply wrong.
Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it better, it is just proof of
an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you didn't even make yourself.
As nerds, you're supposed to be better than that.
How can you be all for standards-compliance with browsers and rile against a much
stronger, decades-old ISO standard (which is based on a centuries old definition from the
beginning of the metric system - "kilo" has been 1000 for over 200 years)?
On the other hand, you are the same crowd regularly writing about "mbit/s" while meaning "Mbit/s",
thereby being off by just a tiny, unimportant, paltry factor of a billion.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?
-- an annoyed scientist
Im impressed: For an infinite tape, the reels look very compact.
There's no much detail but somehow I don't think that will happen unless he's also invented a 'super-elastic' concrete ..
Fibre-reinforced concrete already exists. It has pretty amazing properties, a very un-concretelike elasticity included.
Just to spare non-specialists the google: The trachea is the windpipe.
Would've been nice to include in TFS.
These missions have now lasted years when they were expected to last 90 days.
They were never expected to last only 90 days - the initial(!) budget did only provide for
that mission length. It was fully expected to be extended.
The rovers being able to go for many years is indeed a bonus, proof of great engineering and in part
due to the unanticipated positive effect of the wind: it cleaned the solar panels instead of depositing dust.
But to state that "they were only expected to last for 90 days" is plain wrong.
Regardless, Scientology is prohibited in Germany;
*sigh* - no it's not. Do you think a prohibited group could have a big
HQ building in Berlin? It is not considered a religion
though, and is under constant scrutiny by several federal and state agencies
for human rights violations, fraud, and other interesting things.
I'm reminded of Feynman on the Columbia commission.
Challenger. By the time Columbia went down (for - amongst other - similar reasons than Challenger),
Richard Feynman wasn't around anymore to see how little impact his statements had on NASA.
I've got to go back and hunt down the issue about the Russians having a Nuclear Powered Airplane, and that we were going to have our own in 18 months.
Well, the US military at least in fact had the technology: Project Pluto.
They just never flew it, because it would have irradiated large amounts of land. A rare victory for common sense at the time.
Pet peeve of mine. Big one. It's really hard for me to take someone seriously who
writes about millibits while meaning megabits.
You mean the "Teletubby Land GUI"?