As a scientist I'm dismayed by the number of people who always believe in science conspiracies (like here where he says the only reason he didn't get funding was the tokomak). It's hard to decide how useful this method really is from the article as it's not a science article, but I have some doubts.
What people need to realize about science like this is that if he can make this work he will be lauded and made very rich. Although science does make mistakes, occasionally supporting wrong theories and such, overall it progresses by natural selection (and those who are correct get high end jobs because of it). I would love to disprove dark matter or dark energy because that would make me really well known. But yet I read about how the entire field of astronomy is so stuck on it that they won't look at other possibilities (but we do and they don't work with what we know).
If this guy is correct he should be able to convince most other scientists in his field (which he hasn't been able to do). This isn't always due to science (some people can't communicate and sometime politics plays a role) but generally it is.
I wonder how many theories have been posted on slashdot now that are just like this. Slashdot has been around long enough that someone could go back and look at the current state of these theories. How many are still, "waiting for that big moment" even after they go some funding. More importantly, I think slashdot should make more of an effort to put up articles when they show something has been disproved (like that article a few weeks ago arguing against dark matter in galaxies which used the wrong gravitational potential). Somebody with a science background should at least edit the original slashdot post so that people could get a better background before deciding that the future of energy production is safe.
I think slashdot users should take note due to platform selection. I have paid for the mlb broadcasts the last two years since I could listen to the Redsox in Baltimore at home and work. Now, with windows media being the only stream being offered, I will not be able to listen to the broadcasts as windows media player doesn't support either my linux machines (or solaris the other OS I use). So MLB take note, I probably won't renew this year if media player is all you offer.
I couldn't agree more about the Honor Harrington series. Its absolutely terrible. Sci Fi books commonly have problems with depth of characters but at least in most books there is some. Stephen Donaldson's Gap series is an example of how SciFi should be (although I generally prefer the Fantasy for this reason). Why do people like the Harrington series?
Although I am in Linux 90% of the time I reboot into Windows XP (which I dislike immensely) regularly.
I have tried heroically to get my palm pilot to sync under Linux correctly (I can get it to talk but never to sync and off course vindigo). Also, Redhat 8.0 regularly loses my printer (Epson C60) so sometimes I have to reboot to print things. I have several USB devices I have yet to be able to get to work under Linux (like my Archos Jukebox which I would think would be easy). And for all the talk that linux has become easier to install in the last few years-I think its bunk-my brand new machine with fairly standard components took a lot of playing to get to work correctly (Mandrake wouldnt even install and redhat took some serious time).
I've had the same problem and have tried several solutions to it.
One fortran 90 is actually almost OK to work in. The problem is that many programmers create fortran 90 code that is really fortran 77 code with some new features being used. Unfortunately it still looks like f77 code. f90 (and even better f95) can be fine to program in as it takes care of many of the major flaws in f77. Plus it has many vector functions and is the fastest code out there (that I have come across). However f90 is not free for linux (that I know of) although it does come with most sun & alpha machines.
Personally I love matlab. You can even call it from C (although I haven't benchmarked that). I disagree that it is flawed for serious programming although it does appear that you can't optimize the code as easily. Anyway I love matlab and the ease of which it graphs goes along way to saving you a lot of time when examining your output.
I dislike idl immensely and agree that c, even with libraries, doesn't really cut it for serious number crunching.
Another free possibility is PDL. I quite like it although performance is an issue. Its very fast to develop in although it is always a work in development when it comes to its feature set.
I am of 2 minds on this
1) I've heard Goldin talk at AAS (American Astronomical Society) meetings and was very disturbed by him. The best part was his comments on how genetic algorthimns should be used to do everything and that all of our current computational methodology was useless. Being someone who does use genetic algorithmns occasionally I couldn't believe how obvious it was that he had no idea idea of what he spoke. And he continued on several topics just spewing ignorance. Even worse was his reply to a questioner that tried to be reasonable. So he, as a person I really dislike
2) Nasa before Goldin was a mess, it still has a long way to go but its has improved. Most engineers don't go to Nasa anymore, a lot fo money and beauractic waste still occurs. But it has gotten better under him. As much as I don't agree with much of his vision he does have far more long term goals then previous adminstrators-and that is good. Also, faster, better, cheaper is mostly a good idea.
SO although I don't like him, his methods, or his goals I do think Nasa is better than it was when he started.
Distance is the biggest issue here, getting to the moon requires a lot more from your rockets. However in the future maybe...
Someone mentioned the far side of the moon for astronomy (especially radio), we sure would like it.
I would think due to the large amount of debris in orbit around the earth that being on the moon would be safer.
However the ISS is close enough to the earth to get some protection from solar flares which you woldn't get on the moon.
a) Hubble would fry if it ever looked at the earth
b) due to completely different design goals and needs the spy satelittes couldn't do anything like Hubble eitherc) the mirror problems on hubble we pretty obvious to anyone who had ground a mirror
excluding the fact that dell doesn't ship an athlon machine I mostly agree.
You can really use the same argument against the P4.
If you wanto to just run linux you should buy x86.
But a lot of people either already own a ppc or want to continue to run mac-these people will use ppc. Also I would add on the workstation/enterprise level the situation is very different as x86 isn't even in the same league as power4. Off course tahts just an argument to use alpha:)
Look, the linux kernel has never had proper ppc support, this is not an issue that has anything to do with Mac OS X or 2.4. This has been true since the early days of the ppc kernel. You always downloaded from Cort or Paul (at least for apple/clones).
Why it has not been integrated into the tree (especailly as of version 2.4) is something I don't understand. I would have liked to see Pauls response but know nothing about this issue.
Actually incorrect partly. Your right the issue is in the codec (Sorenson specifically). But the reason that it has not been allowed to become more public is found in the licensing agreement Apple made the Sorenson people sign (I think its like the university of utah or something). See xanim for the real info.
I have owned 3 pda's over the years (newton, ce, * handspring) and 1 laptop. Personally the only one that I have ever found useful was the newton. Other it had some problems it allowed me to effectively take notes, actual do some computing, and was nice and portable. I like my handspring but I fnd it only useful as an organizer. CE is powerful enough but clunky and crash prone. My laptop only makes we wish i was using my desktop system. However this, a system with power, note taking capability, portability...
Only real question to me is how portable is it really. Ideally I would probably design this to be more like a pda but I would be willing to pay a lot more for it than I do a pda.
So where are those webpads we keep hearing about as internet connectivity is also something I want in this (I'm sure you can attach a wireless modem to the thinkpad).
Actually thats not really true. A 1ghz athlon is not only cheaper than a 500mhz G4 (significantly) it would blow away the G4 too in most tests. In most tests is the key, their are some tests (mostly photoshop) that they would be comparable. This is due to some unfair optimization for the G4 and the fact that the altivec processing unit is really well designed. If you actually look at the design of the athlon and the G4 you will find them amazing similar. However excepting the altivec the G4 can't keep up and runs at mcuh lower clock speeds. Now compare the G4 to the Pentium and the comparisons that the mac people do become slightly more fair but still its now double the performance that they talk about. Then when you add in other factors (bus speeds, memory) it looks even worse for Macs.
As to the main part of this article, I currently run a heavily upgraded Mac using mostly yellow dog linux and some mac os 9 and X. If Apple ships a stable (currently aqua crashes regularly in the Public Beta I have) X with sound and if development of Xfree86 for X continues as well as it has I expect to buy Mac OS X and install it and possibly delete PPC linux. However, having said that, I expect my next computer purchase will be a PC and I don't expect Windows to ever touch it, go linux:)
Part of my reason for wanting Max OS X instead of linux ppc is the fact that the current linux ppc distributions sucks (although I really should check out debian and suse, linuxppc has soo many bugs) and the application support, although improving, is not what I want it to be.
How is finding out how the universe works wasting our money?
As with most of science no one ever knows how it will ever be useful. But without particle physics you sure wouldn't be using a computer (can you say monitor, cpu, cd rom,...).
I would guess practical uses for the neutrino will generally be secondary. Neutrinos are produced in a lot of high energy reactions (can you say in the sun) as by products. Those reactions certainly have practical applications.
I'm still hoping for a neutrino "telescope" (that sees more than the sun & SN1997A).
Also I would point out that super Kamiokande has data that, although still somewhat controversial, looks to be proof of neutrino mass.
What I think makes this even worse in the US is that we talk about making public transportation (in the few places its usable) pay for itself. Personally I think if we make mass transport pay for itself than we should make the road systems pay for themselves too. john
Lower frequences than visible are not a good idea (lower than visible). You get a LOT more absorption (why do you think most/all lower frequency instruments are in space and not ground based). Plus you have much more obvious health side effects (what do you think UV and xray will do in your cell phone). Also power requirements go up a lot.
This is actually a pretty difficult problem. This has to be examined at each wavelength and you can get very different types of results. Some radio wavelengths will be unusable due to atmospheric effects (molecules in our atmosphere), some will be blocked, some might be harmful to humans, and some are useful to astronomers. But the real motivator will always be interference (from a varity of different causes). Some are obvious, emit at a certain wavelength and at exactly twice that wavelength. What you detect will be the constructive/destructive interference of the two. So how do you get around this problem...
This is a very hard question that will be mostly decided by politics.
GR DOES reduce to Newtonian physics in the weak field limit. We would know without doubt that the theory was wrong if it didn't.
As a physicist/astronomer who has taken GR & cosmology I'm slightly skeptical. But there are problems with the current theory, I would attribute them more to our ability to handle the math/understand the results then to the sort of the solutions described here. But then its important for people to investigate other solutions, otherwise what is progress.
Off course what everyone wants is a GUT (grand unified theory) that works. GR appears to be compatible with some string theories (although they also require SUSY I think which also hasn't been found either, any day now maybe though) Is this? Very possibly, but thats what we would really want to know.
I'd be curious to understand better what he would expect to replace black holes. As someone who studies active galactic nuclei its hard to believe there is anything but a black hole at the center. But, this is a pretty uninformed comment as I know so little about the proposed solution. Maybe I go looking for a preprint.
1) Its seems pretty clear that LinuxOne has broken the GPL terms (this is based one what I have read on the net from people I trust)
then
2) They should get hit with a restraining order and accompanying lawsuit. They have been doing this long enough that its time to stop letting them get away with it. Plus, it should make it clear to everyone what is really going on here.
So who's in charge of a lawsuit. It needs to be put together quickly. I would support (money) if need be. john
Actually as an astronomer this is not news much at all. There is some new science in this work but this isn't it. For over 10 years most scientists have believed that at the center of active galactic nuclei there are black holes (where else do you get the energy from). And evolution studies have hinted at this strongly for years now and MACHO studies and...
This to first order is correct, but think back to freshman physics (this is a simplification)
distance=time*velocity+.5*time^2*acceleration
Now this equation is very wrong in that its newtonian mechanics not GR but the GR equation is no where near as simple. But Hubble's comstant is basically your velocity term and then we have an accleration term (that recent evidence suggests is not sero) and then...
Its a complicated equation that depends of constants that we only have very rough guesses for. john grimes chandra science mission planner
Sign, 1) The universe is expanding. Think about a pool of water. your thinking that if I cause a circular wave to start in the pool we have a center of that wave. But thats not what is happening. More equivalently would be that the whole pool grew. And to make in even more equivalent the pool which I am comparing to a universe is not in ground. So at the beginning there was one point. Now that one point has grown to all points, so all points are that center point, as there is no center. Does this help?
2) in a way you can't tell directly it was at a different wavelength. What you generally do is take a spectra of an object (lets say galaxy). The spectra tells me how many photons it is emitting at a certain wavelength. Now we know that most matter is hydrogen (can tell from the local universe) and we know the atomic transitions of hydrogen and at what wavelengths (on Earth) hydrogen gives off a lot of light. So basically we will compare the local galaxy (and our knowledge of atomic physics) to that far off galaxy and compare the shifts in wavelength. This is very, very reliable. Good question.
3) I don't want to touch this. Not because its all wrong, but because its my poor explanations skills will only confuse you more. Read more
Man, I'm really wasting my time now. Spend all my time plannong Chandra observations for a telescope that doesn't exist. Somebody must be having a lot of fun when things get nuts and I get calls at weird times of day. Maybe I should find a new job. john grimes, Chandra Science Mission Planner
Slashdot Mirror
As a scientist I'm dismayed by the number of people who always believe in science conspiracies (like here where he says the only reason he didn't get funding was the tokomak). It's hard to decide how useful this method really is from the article as it's not a science article, but I have some doubts.
What people need to realize about science like this is that if he can make this work he will be lauded and made very rich. Although science does make mistakes, occasionally supporting wrong theories and such, overall it progresses by natural selection (and those who are correct get high end jobs because of it). I would love to disprove dark matter or dark energy because that would make me really well known. But yet I read about how the entire field of astronomy is so stuck on it that they won't look at other possibilities (but we do and they don't work with what we know).
If this guy is correct he should be able to convince most other scientists in his field (which he hasn't been able to do). This isn't always due to science (some people can't communicate and sometime politics plays a role) but generally it is.
I wonder how many theories have been posted on slashdot now that are just like this. Slashdot has been around long enough that someone could go back and look at the current state of these theories. How many are still, "waiting for that big moment" even after they go some funding. More importantly, I think slashdot should make more of an effort to put up articles when they show something has been disproved (like that article a few weeks ago arguing against dark matter in galaxies which used the wrong gravitational potential). Somebody with a science background should at least edit the original slashdot post so that people could get a better background before deciding that the future of energy production is safe.
I think slashdot users should take note due to platform selection. I have paid for the mlb broadcasts the last two years since I could listen to the Redsox in Baltimore at home and work. Now, with windows media being the only stream being offered, I will not be able to listen to the broadcasts as windows media player doesn't support either my linux machines (or solaris the other OS I use). So MLB take note, I probably won't renew this year if media player is all you offer.
I couldn't agree more about the Honor Harrington series. Its absolutely terrible. Sci Fi books commonly have problems with depth of characters but at least in most books there is some. Stephen Donaldson's Gap series is an example of how SciFi should be (although I generally prefer the Fantasy for this reason). Why do people like the Harrington series?
Although I am in Linux 90% of the time I reboot into Windows XP (which I dislike immensely) regularly.
I have tried heroically to get my palm pilot to sync under Linux correctly (I can get it to talk but never to sync and off course vindigo). Also, Redhat 8.0 regularly loses my printer (Epson C60) so sometimes I have to reboot to print things. I have several USB devices I have yet to be able to get to work under Linux (like my Archos Jukebox which I would think would be easy). And for all the talk that linux has become easier to install in the last few years-I think its bunk-my brand new machine with fairly standard components took a lot of playing to get to work correctly (Mandrake wouldnt even install and redhat took some serious time).
I've had the same problem and have tried several solutions to it.
One fortran 90 is actually almost OK to work in. The problem is that many programmers create fortran 90 code that is really fortran 77 code with some new features being used. Unfortunately it still looks like f77 code. f90 (and even better f95) can be fine to program in as it takes care of many of the major flaws in f77. Plus it has many vector functions and is the fastest code out there (that I have come across). However f90 is not free for linux (that I know of) although it does come with most sun & alpha machines.
Personally I love matlab. You can even call it from C (although I haven't benchmarked that). I disagree that it is flawed for serious programming although it does appear that you can't optimize the code as easily. Anyway I love matlab and the ease of which it graphs goes along way to saving you a lot of time when examining your output.
I dislike idl immensely and agree that c, even with libraries, doesn't really cut it for serious number crunching.
Another free possibility is PDL. I quite like it although performance is an issue. Its very fast to develop in although it is always a work in development when it comes to its feature set.
Hope this helps
I am of 2 minds on this
1) I've heard Goldin talk at AAS (American Astronomical Society) meetings and was very disturbed by him. The best part was his comments on how genetic algorthimns should be used to do everything and that all of our current computational methodology was useless. Being someone who does use genetic algorithmns occasionally I couldn't believe how obvious it was that he had no idea idea of what he spoke. And he continued on several topics just spewing ignorance. Even worse was his reply to a questioner that tried to be reasonable. So he, as a person I really dislike
2) Nasa before Goldin was a mess, it still has a long way to go but its has improved. Most engineers don't go to Nasa anymore, a lot fo money and beauractic waste still occurs. But it has gotten better under him. As much as I don't agree with much of his vision he does have far more long term goals then previous adminstrators-and that is good. Also, faster, better, cheaper is mostly a good idea.
SO although I don't like him, his methods, or his goals I do think Nasa is better than it was when he started.
Distance is the biggest issue here, getting to the moon requires a lot more from your rockets. However in the future maybe ...
Someone mentioned the far side of the moon for astronomy (especially radio), we sure would like it.
I would think due to the large amount of debris in orbit around the earth that being on the moon would be safer.
However the ISS is close enough to the earth to get some protection from solar flares which you woldn't get on the moon.
I can't tell if you guys are serious or not.
a) Hubble would fry if it ever looked at the earth
b) due to completely different design goals and needs the spy satelittes couldn't do anything like Hubble eitherc) the mirror problems on hubble we pretty obvious to anyone who had ground a mirror
excluding the fact that dell doesn't ship an athlon machine I mostly agree.
:)
You can really use the same argument against the P4.
If you wanto to just run linux you should buy x86.
But a lot of people either already own a ppc or want to continue to run mac-these people will use ppc. Also I would add on the workstation/enterprise level the situation is very different as x86 isn't even in the same league as power4. Off course tahts just an argument to use alpha
Look, the linux kernel has never had proper ppc support, this is not an issue that has anything to do with Mac OS X or 2.4. This has been true since the early days of the ppc kernel. You always downloaded from Cort or Paul (at least for apple /clones).
Why it has not been integrated into the tree (especailly as of version 2.4) is something I don't understand. I would have liked to see Pauls response but know nothing about this issue.
Actually incorrect partly. Your right the issue is in the codec (Sorenson specifically). But the reason that it has not been allowed to become more public is found in the licensing agreement Apple made the Sorenson people sign (I think its like the university of utah or something). See xanim for the real info.
I have owned 3 pda's over the years (newton, ce, * handspring) and 1 laptop. Personally the only one that I have ever found useful was the newton. Other it had some problems it allowed me to effectively take notes, actual do some computing, and was nice and portable. I like my handspring but I fnd it only useful as an organizer. CE is powerful enough but clunky and crash prone. My laptop only makes we wish i was using my desktop system. However this, a system with power, note taking capability, portability ...
Only real question to me is how portable is it really. Ideally I would probably design this to be more like a pda but I would be willing to pay a lot more for it than I do a pda.
So where are those webpads we keep hearing about as internet connectivity is also something I want in this (I'm sure you can attach a wireless modem to the thinkpad).
Actually thats not really true. A 1ghz athlon is not only cheaper than a 500mhz G4 (significantly) it would blow away the G4 too in most tests. In most tests is the key, their are some tests (mostly photoshop) that they would be comparable. This is due to some unfair optimization for the G4 and the fact that the altivec processing unit is really well designed. If you actually look at the design of the athlon and the G4 you will find them amazing similar. However excepting the altivec the G4 can't keep up and runs at mcuh lower clock speeds. Now compare the G4 to the Pentium and the comparisons that the mac people do become slightly more fair but still its now double the performance that they talk about. Then when you add in other factors (bus speeds, memory) it looks even worse for Macs. As to the main part of this article, I currently run a heavily upgraded Mac using mostly yellow dog linux and some mac os 9 and X. If Apple ships a stable (currently aqua crashes regularly in the Public Beta I have) X with sound and if development of Xfree86 for X continues as well as it has I expect to buy Mac OS X and install it and possibly delete PPC linux. However, having said that, I expect my next computer purchase will be a PC and I don't expect Windows to ever touch it, go linux :)
Part of my reason for wanting Max OS X instead of linux ppc is the fact that the current linux ppc distributions sucks (although I really should check out debian and suse, linuxppc has soo many bugs) and the application support, although improving, is not what I want it to be.
How is finding out how the universe works wasting our money?
...).
As with most of science no one ever knows how it will ever be useful. But without particle physics you sure wouldn't be using a computer (can you say monitor, cpu, cd rom,
I would guess practical uses for the neutrino will generally be secondary. Neutrinos are produced in a lot of high energy reactions (can you say in the sun) as by products. Those reactions certainly have practical applications.
I'm still hoping for a neutrino "telescope" (that sees more than the sun & SN1997A).
Also I would point out that super Kamiokande has data that, although still somewhat controversial, looks to be proof of neutrino mass.
john
What I think makes this even worse in the US is that we talk about making public transportation (in the few places its usable) pay for itself. Personally I think if we make mass transport pay for itself than we should make the road systems pay for themselves too.
john
You do realize that radio is light.
Lower frequences than visible are not a good idea (lower than visible). You get a LOT more absorption (why do you think most/all lower frequency instruments are in space and not ground based). Plus you have much more obvious health side effects (what do you think UV and xray will do in your cell phone). Also power requirements go up a lot.
This is actually a pretty difficult problem. This has to be examined at each wavelength and you can get very different types of results. Some radio wavelengths will be unusable due to atmospheric effects (molecules in our atmosphere), some will be blocked, some might be harmful to humans, and some are useful to astronomers. ...
But the real motivator will always be interference (from a varity of different causes). Some are obvious, emit at a certain wavelength and at exactly twice that wavelength. What you detect will be the constructive/destructive interference of the two. So how do you get around this problem
This is a very hard question that will be mostly decided by politics.
GR DOES reduce to Newtonian physics in the weak field limit. We would know without doubt that the theory was wrong if it didn't.
As a physicist/astronomer who has taken GR & cosmology I'm slightly skeptical. But there are problems with the current theory, I would attribute them more to our ability to handle the math/understand the results then to the sort of the solutions described here. But then its important for people to investigate other solutions, otherwise what is progress.
Off course what everyone wants is a GUT (grand unified theory) that works. GR appears to be compatible with some string theories (although they also require SUSY I think which also hasn't been found either, any day now maybe though) Is this? Very possibly, but thats what we would really want to know.
I'd be curious to understand better what he would expect to replace black holes. As someone who studies active galactic nuclei its hard to believe there is anything but a black hole at the center. But, this is a pretty uninformed comment as I know so little about the proposed solution. Maybe I go looking for a preprint.
John Grimes, Chandra science mission planner
KX133 from Via? is out now. Irongate was always a stop gap measure according to AMD (they are not really a chip set manufacturer).
If the Athelon Geoforce combination is so bad why have all the gamers gone to it for much higher frame rates and no mentioning of crashes?
The only reason not to use a athelon on a server is multiprocessing capabilities and the fact that I don't know of any workstation type motherboards.
Sorry, not to sound too critical
1) Its seems pretty clear that LinuxOne has broken the GPL terms (this is based one what I have read on the net from people I trust)
then
2) They should get hit with a restraining order and accompanying lawsuit. They have been doing this long enough that its time to stop letting them get away with it. Plus, it should make it clear to everyone what is really going on here.
So who's in charge of a lawsuit. It needs to be put together quickly. I would support (money) if need be.
john
Actually as an astronomer this is not news much at all. There is some new science in this work but this isn't it. For over 10 years most scientists have believed that at the center of active galactic nuclei there are black holes (where else do you get the energy from). And evolution studies have hinted at this strongly for years now and MACHO studies and ...
john grimes
chandra science mission planner
This to first order is correct, but think back to freshman physics (this is a simplification)
...
distance=time*velocity+.5*time^2*acceleration
Now this equation is very wrong in that its newtonian mechanics not GR but the GR equation is no where near as simple. But Hubble's comstant is basically your velocity term and then we have an accleration term (that recent evidence suggests is not sero) and then
Its a complicated equation that depends of constants that we only have very rough guesses for.
john grimes
chandra science mission planner
try chandra.harvard.edu. html
specifically http://chandra.harvard.edu/about/telescope_system
john grimes
chandra science mission planner
Sign,
1) The universe is expanding.
Think about a pool of water. your thinking that if I cause a circular wave to start in the pool we have a center of that wave. But thats not what is happening. More equivalently would be that the whole pool grew. And to make in even more equivalent the pool which I am comparing to a universe is not in ground.
So at the beginning there was one point. Now that one point has grown to all points, so all points are that center point, as there is no center.
Does this help?
2) in a way you can't tell directly it was at a different wavelength. What you generally do is take a spectra of an object (lets say galaxy). The spectra tells me how many photons it is emitting at a certain wavelength. Now we know that most matter is hydrogen (can tell from the local universe) and we know the atomic transitions of hydrogen and at what wavelengths (on Earth) hydrogen gives off a lot of light. So basically we will compare the local galaxy (and our knowledge of atomic physics) to that far off galaxy and compare the shifts in wavelength. This is very, very reliable. Good question.
3) I don't want to touch this. Not because its all wrong, but because its my poor explanations skills will only confuse you more. Read more
John Grimes
Chandra Science Mission Planner
Man, I'm really wasting my time now. Spend all my time plannong Chandra observations for a telescope that doesn't exist. Somebody must be having a lot of fun when things get nuts and I get calls at weird times of day. Maybe I should find a new job.
john grimes, Chandra Science Mission Planner