The Hindu parts were explained to me by Hindu friends; I'm more of a Spinoza pantheist (an "essential monist" if you want to get into that level of detail, but I disagree with Spinoza in that he claimed God had no personality).
You may find Panentheism more palatable than Pantheism - Panentheists believe that reality is a subset of the divine, that God is larger than the universe. This belief system is highly compatible with the teachings of Jesus and Moses, and neatly eliminates at least one of the objections to religious dualism that pantheists like myself always bring up. Panentheisists share the love of the physical world that informs pantheism (as do the Judeo-Christian groups who take Genesis 1:26 seriously) because they recognize it as literally divine.
I've got my own code running on about 40 servers (4 different operating systems) but none of it is kernel code. I'd rather stay out of the kernel and driver code so I can easily contract out support to my distro vendor, but I think I could do it if I had to (most likely I'd pay someone else to do it, just like I'd hire a helicopter pilot if I needed one (even though I think I could figure out how to fly one if I had to)).
Even if I agree with you that you are a "normal user" (which I probably wouldn't if I actually knew you - normal people are rare on slashdot) that's really a straw man. Why does linux need to make an explicit effort to be for "normal users"? Why can't it just strive to be the most reliable and functional operating system and let "normal" adjust itself to suit?
People built airplanes and automobiles even though "normal users" only knew how to use oxcarts and horses - and the "normal users" continued to define their own goals and work for them. For some, that meant continuing to use oxen and horses... we have a large community of Amish and Mennonites just down the road here.
I frequently find hardware that won't work with some version of windows, and I frequently find hardware that won't work with some version of linux. There are more supported versions of linux available, but the latest version of windows is more likely to support the latest hardware than the latest version of linux.
There's no appreciable difference here. Some tires don't fit trucks, some tires don't fit cars. Some tires will fit a subset of both groups (imagine a colorful Venn diagram).
Use the combination of hardware and software that allows you (or your non-profit) to achieve your goals. You don't have to remake any of those three things (hardware/software/goals) to be anything they don't need to be.
If that means you use all Microsoft products and all Gateway hardware, nobody "fails". A linux monoculture would be just as unhealthy as a Microsoft monoculture.
I still don't get it. You said "due to the nature of business the drivers just can't be open sourced".
I've never encountered such a situation, but I'm willing to imagine it: So, either the vendor maintains the drivers across API changes or those drivers are not commercially viable. If there is a need for the function they serve, market pressure should cause some other vendor to come up with something that is commercially viable. If fascists prevent market pressure from operating, I will hack something together to suit my needs regardless.
So who is failing? It's not me or Linus. We just want a system that does real work. I don't even need a GUI.
You people need to figure out exactly what you want, Linux for the masses (read: grandma, mom, etc) or an O/S where you have to spend valuable time just getting it to work with regular hardware.
I'm not sure who "you people" are, but I don't care about any of that psychodrama.
I just want to pay a fair price for a system that doesn't crash or force me to make "upgrades" that are not beneficial to me.
Obviously, I need source code so vendors can't extort more money from me after the sale, or force me to load upgrades in order to obtain security fixes. You can't really have a fair and free market without source code.
I mean, for me, failing means not achieving a goal. I try to avoid that.
Since I don't see how anyone could have "defining the precedence of a nebulous ideology in relation to a completely undefined experience" as a goal, I find your post incomprehensible.
I suspect Linus would feel the same way. For whom are you speaking?
I'm honestly confused, not trying to flame. Who is failing, and by what measure? I am succeeding, personally.
Oh, and just to be on-topic for once, I vote NO (to a static kernel layer that is not allowed to improve in order to maximise the profits of some guy who doesn't want to share).
I live in a forested steam valley. There is absolutely no wind at 40 feet because that's deep in the tree canopy and well below the hilltops. Hugh Piggot lives on the wind-blasted Scoraig Pennisula - some of his neighbors have wind generators that are literally just high enough off the ground so that the blades won't score the dirt.
If there's no wind at 40 feet, there's no wind generating ability. If there's 25 mph wind blowing through a tunnel, there's wind generating ability below ground!. Think about it for 2 picoseconds and see if your BS detector doesn't start going off.
Although split-barrel vawgs do work (and are appropriate to some conditions - like in the median strip of a tunnel) tower height is a variable that is site-dependent, and not technology-dependent.
Let's never post links to anything that challenges the consensus view of technologic capabilities!
After all, what did the airplane, high-speed trains, synthetic polymers, high-speed data communications, hydrogen fool cells, brushless electric synchronous motors, or any of those other heretical ideas give us that was worth all those other crackpot ideas we had to listen to?
It's far too painful to ever listen to nutcakes and charlatans, we must protect our delicate sensibilities and the pristine reputation of slashdot.org regardless of how many innovations we will consequently ignore!
If you look through a microscope, you see cells. They exist, they are real and distinct. If you throw away the microscope, you see larger organisms, although you have blinded yourself to the microscopic. Still, those larger organisms exist, they are not merely illusions cloaking a reality that only contains cells. You can poke them with your finger - surely the ultimate test of reality for the common man.
If you want to look at a still larger level you now need to climb a tower, or look at something far away. The mountain is one item, the city is one item, despite the fact that the mountain is forested and the forests are composed of individual trees, despite the fact that city swarms with smaller things both alive and dead. This is your gift, as a potentially sentient being - you can vary your perspective and see the layers of reality that exist. They all exist all the time, but you can choose to see them at different levels.
Now throw away your eyeball the same way you threw away your microscope (i.e. metaphorically) and take another step out... look at Earth photographs taken from orbit or Hubble shots of distant suns. The planet itself is also a single real thing despite it being composed of many things. Bear with me, I know this is getting repetitive.
Now stop depending on all physical tools and organs other than your mind (brain/soul/anima if you prefer - doesn't matter - whatever you call the you that knows things) and conceive of the universe. The totality of the universe, regardless of whether that is finite or infinite, ageless or just created 10 seconds ago (those details don't matter any more than the individual needles on individual pine trees mattered when you were looking at the mountain). Make sure your conception of the universe includes you - that's critical! We're sneaking up on non-dualistic thought here by way of physics.
Now put your idea of God in there too. I'm not saying your God doesn't exist independent of the rest of the universe; a "super-natural" or "meta-physical" being if that's your idea of God. But even though one rock on the mountain is silicon and one is carbon, you can still conceive of the mountain, so try to conceive of something that includes absolutely everything that ever is, was, will be, without making distinctions between the natural and the supernatural, the concrete and the numinous, or anything else.
Obviously, since this idea we've conceived contains your idea of God, it is more than your idea of God. Get it? Do you see the implications? What is greater than God? If something has more to it than whatever powers of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence you ascribe to God, isn't your idea of God basically wrong? You're worshipping a subset of God, instead of participating fully in divinity.
That's the straight Pantheist enlightenment. God is right here, right now, all the time, you are physically in touch with the divine, you are a part of the ultimate deity. I suspect it's what Jesus believed, but that's a heresy of course (no matter, I am already marked for death by the Phinehas Priesthood).
Now, the reason Christians can't understand this really: because understanding it is experiencing it. Once you do understand, God talks to you. All the time! It's really pretty distracting, which is why so many eastern monks appear to just bliss out and withdraw from the rest of the world.
Within most fundamentalist belief systems you are forced to reject this experience, because it's not God talking, but Satan, and the fact that it's self-evident to the senses is just one more strike against it. The Bible and Quran tell us the physical world is a trap for the wicked, after all; "enlightenment" must be a trick of Iblis, a sad delusion, or dangerous mental illness.
Anyway, the Hindu beetle in the pudding is the idea that many (if not most) people will not benefit from relating directly to the godhead, or else are in
I just read a large chunk of your website and I feel confident that you will never understand any explanation I might tender, nor would you wish to. I need to go take a shower now, maybe I'll eventually be able to pry this beam out of my eye.
Hinduism is essentially pantheistic, and all this seems like inconsequential bibble-babble from a pantheistic point of view. It's not particularly pertinent to real spirituality or useful philsophy. Perhaps that's why you aren't getting a lot of Hindoo responses?
PS: Pantheism is not a belief in multiple gods; that would be some form of polytheism or animism (Hinduism transcends these boundaries in a manner very confusing to American WASPs, incidentally).
With computers being designed as they are now, the raised floor no longer makes sense
I disagree (disclaimer: I'm sitting over one right now).
Our building was designed principally by telecommunications and IS professionals about seven years ago. We had a real architect for legal compliance, but he was nearly constantly baffled by our requirements. It has a large raised floor area, about 70 by 35 feet.
Originally, there were bus & tag cables (about as thick as a fat man's thumb) under the floor as well as flood sensors and huge power lines for feeding the mainframe peripherals. The under-floor plenum is pressurized with filtered air so that cooling can be supplied anywhere in the room by simply replacing or re-orienting floor tiles.
We were only planning to run the mainframe until about 2001, and that worked out according to plan. Today, in the space where the mainframe's many refrigerator-sized boxes once stood, we have racks of 2u and 4u servers. We still have the flood sensors, mainframe-class UPS, and pressurized plenum. We also have strategically placed drag lines so we can pull new wires from various useful places without lifting more than two tiles at a time.
In the Real World [tm] the vast quantity of cat six cable required to give us mainframe-class reliability with commodity hardware is larger in both volume and mass than the mainframe cables ever were.
Unless you are going wireless, or you have a 1960s era computing infrastructure (25-pin RS232 anyone?) the number of wire runs required to serve x number of desks does not decrease significantly when you change server technologies. In fact, given that new installations typically use all home runs of twisted-pair ethernet, the amount of wiring will typically increase over that required for old-school etherhose (10b5) or coax/twinax/LAT dumb terminal infrastructures.
Trust me on this one, I've been building computer infrastructure since 20 mA loop days!:^) The classic raised-floor computer center is designed for constantly changing technology, and thus is very desireable - if you can afford to do it right.
I've read the pertinent chapter of Matthew's (boring) treatise on naval timber as well as Darwin, and (as Darwin himself said) there is nothing missing - you are factually incorrect in your statement that "Darwin was the first to... come up with a unified and fairly complete method for how evolution worked".
Since several other people, decades before Darwin (and without ever having seen the Galapagos!) came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection, I don't see how you can support the claim that Darwin's (admittedly independent) discovery was more important than any other biologist's work.
Darwin was a great science writer (better than Gould, IMO, who wrote up punk eke) but calling him the greatest biologist of all time is a bit over the top. His work on worms is very good, certainly, but it's not like he isolated DNA, came up with the germ theory of disease, or derived the laws of inheritance (for example).
I also disagree with your statement that Darwin's work "gave a _why_ to biology". At most, a "how" - Lamarck and Teilhard were the ones who tried to put a "why" to biology, although their work is generally scorned today.
Damn, there's really nothing OT in this post at all, is there? OK, I'll shut up now.
Unitarianism is a featherbed for falling Christians -- Charles Darwin
Darwin's great achievement was as an author and a popularizer of science, not as a biologist.
The mechanism of evolution through natural selection had already been deduced by others (if you read Darwin's corpus, he generously acknowledges priorwork) but Darwin was the first to write about it for the average reader, rather than for philosophers, engineers, or scientists.
Exalting Darwin above Linneaus, Lamarck, Mendel, Dawkins, Crick and Watson as a biologist is probably unfair. However, as a science writer, he was a giant, so your point still stands - it's unsuprising that he could handle a large volume of correspondence.
I referred your post to a couple of space scientists, and they essentially said that if you assume that the HST is a giant 17th century spyglass connected to a Kodak instamatic, your numbers are probably correct. But in any case the lunar landers are quite a bit bigger than 1m across, so I have no idea how you got modded "insightful".
Do not confuse the specifications for the original hubble optics with those of the ACS HRC (High resolution camera of the Advanced Camera for Surveys), which wasn't installed until SM3B (March 2002).
Thanks, AC! You can play Mechwarrior or Civ on that baby, and it has a switch to turn off the power-sucking wireless and touchpad periphs when you are far from electric sockets!
I think I'm going to get the boss to buy me one;^)
Um, they returned in the LEM ascent stage? You know, the one sitting on top of the descent stage? The lower half that was left behind?
Yeah, the one that is sitting in the middle of a huge obvious blast splash from the initial landing, at the end of a long trail of disturbed moon dust, all scarred up with the effects of the ascent stage blasting off from on top of it and probably scattering beads of gold all over the area?
I asked my brother-in-law, who pulled the data from the HST ACS, and he says he could see the Apollo landers even before the digital cleanups.
The science objective was to look at Aristarchus in UV to determine the presence of a particular mineral that was found in all the lunar rocks brought back from the Apollo 15 and 17 landing sites. They looked at those sites first as a baseline, then they looked at Aristarchus.
So: should I believe some numbers posted by somebody I don't know on slashdot (who thinks a lunar lander and its splash are less than 1 meter wide) or the eyewitness account of a man I know personally (who handles the Hubble output for a living?) You tell me!
Slashdot Mirror
The Hindu parts were explained to me by Hindu friends; I'm more of a Spinoza pantheist (an "essential monist" if you want to get into that level of detail, but I disagree with Spinoza in that he claimed God had no personality).
You may find Panentheism more palatable than Pantheism - Panentheists believe that reality is a subset of the divine, that God is larger than the universe. This belief system is highly compatible with the teachings of Jesus and Moses, and neatly eliminates at least one of the objections to religious dualism that pantheists like myself always bring up. Panentheisists share the love of the physical world that informs pantheism (as do the Judeo-Christian groups who take Genesis 1:26 seriously) because they recognize it as literally divine.
I've got my own code running on about 40 servers (4 different operating systems) but none of it is kernel code. I'd rather stay out of the kernel and driver code so I can easily contract out support to my distro vendor, but I think I could do it if I had to (most likely I'd pay someone else to do it, just like I'd hire a helicopter pilot if I needed one (even though I think I could figure out how to fly one if I had to)).
Even if I agree with you that you are a "normal user" (which I probably wouldn't if I actually knew you - normal people are rare on slashdot) that's really a straw man. Why does linux need to make an explicit effort to be for "normal users"? Why can't it just strive to be the most reliable and functional operating system and let "normal" adjust itself to suit?
People built airplanes and automobiles even though "normal users" only knew how to use oxcarts and horses - and the "normal users" continued to define their own goals and work for them. For some, that meant continuing to use oxen and horses... we have a large community of Amish and Mennonites just down the road here.
I frequently find hardware that won't work with some version of windows, and I frequently find hardware that won't work with some version of linux. There are more supported versions of linux available, but the latest version of windows is more likely to support the latest hardware than the latest version of linux.
There's no appreciable difference here. Some tires don't fit trucks, some tires don't fit cars. Some tires will fit a subset of both groups (imagine a colorful Venn diagram).
Use the combination of hardware and software that allows you (or your non-profit) to achieve your goals. You don't have to remake any of those three things (hardware/software/goals) to be anything they don't need to be.
If that means you use all Microsoft products and all Gateway hardware, nobody "fails". A linux monoculture would be just as unhealthy as a Microsoft monoculture.
I still don't get it. You said "due to the nature of business the drivers just can't be open sourced".
I've never encountered such a situation, but I'm willing to imagine it: So, either the vendor maintains the drivers across API changes or those drivers are not commercially viable. If there is a need for the function they serve, market pressure should cause some other vendor to come up with something that is commercially viable. If fascists prevent market pressure from operating, I will hack something together to suit my needs regardless.
So who is failing? It's not me or Linus. We just want a system that does real work. I don't even need a GUI.
I just want to pay a fair price for a system that doesn't crash or force me to make "upgrades" that are not beneficial to me.
Obviously, I need source code so vendors can't extort more money from me after the sale, or force me to load upgrades in order to obtain security fixes. You can't really have a fair and free market without source code.
I mean, for me, failing means not achieving a goal. I try to avoid that.
Since I don't see how anyone could have "defining the precedence of a nebulous ideology in relation to a completely undefined experience" as a goal, I find your post incomprehensible.
I suspect Linus would feel the same way. For whom are you speaking?
I'm honestly confused, not trying to flame. Who is failing, and by what measure? I am succeeding, personally.
Oh, and just to be on-topic for once, I vote NO (to a static kernel layer that is not allowed to improve in order to maximise the profits of some guy who doesn't want to share).
I live in a forested steam valley. There is absolutely no wind at 40 feet because that's deep in the tree canopy and well below the hilltops. Hugh Piggot lives on the wind-blasted Scoraig Pennisula - some of his neighbors have wind generators that are literally just high enough off the ground so that the blades won't score the dirt.
If there's no wind at 40 feet, there's no wind generating ability. If there's 25 mph wind blowing through a tunnel, there's wind generating ability below ground!. Think about it for 2 picoseconds and see if your BS detector doesn't start going off.
Although split-barrel vawgs do work (and are appropriate to some conditions - like in the median strip of a tunnel) tower height is a variable that is site-dependent, and not technology-dependent.
Let's never post links to anything that challenges the consensus view of technologic capabilities!
After all, what did the airplane, high-speed trains, synthetic polymers, high-speed data communications, hydrogen fool cells, brushless electric synchronous motors, or any of those other heretical ideas give us that was worth all those other crackpot ideas we had to listen to?
It's far too painful to ever listen to nutcakes and charlatans, we must protect our delicate sensibilities and the pristine reputation of slashdot.org regardless of how many innovations we will consequently ignore!
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
If you look through a microscope, you see cells. They exist, they are real and distinct. If you throw away the microscope, you see larger organisms, although you have blinded yourself to the microscopic. Still, those larger organisms exist, they are not merely illusions cloaking a reality that only contains cells. You can poke them with your finger - surely the ultimate test of reality for the common man.
If you want to look at a still larger level you now need to climb a tower, or look at something far away. The mountain is one item, the city is one item, despite the fact that the mountain is forested and the forests are composed of individual trees, despite the fact that city swarms with smaller things both alive and dead. This is your gift, as a potentially sentient being - you can vary your perspective and see the layers of reality that exist. They all exist all the time, but you can choose to see them at different levels.
Now throw away your eyeball the same way you threw away your microscope (i.e. metaphorically) and take another step out... look at Earth photographs taken from orbit or Hubble shots of distant suns. The planet itself is also a single real thing despite it being composed of many things. Bear with me, I know this is getting repetitive.
Now stop depending on all physical tools and organs other than your mind (brain/soul/anima if you prefer - doesn't matter - whatever you call the you that knows things) and conceive of the universe. The totality of the universe, regardless of whether that is finite or infinite, ageless or just created 10 seconds ago (those details don't matter any more than the individual needles on individual pine trees mattered when you were looking at the mountain). Make sure your conception of the universe includes you - that's critical! We're sneaking up on non-dualistic thought here by way of physics.
Now put your idea of God in there too. I'm not saying your God doesn't exist independent of the rest of the universe; a "super-natural" or "meta-physical" being if that's your idea of God. But even though one rock on the mountain is silicon and one is carbon, you can still conceive of the mountain, so try to conceive of something that includes absolutely everything that ever is, was, will be, without making distinctions between the natural and the supernatural, the concrete and the numinous, or anything else.
Obviously, since this idea we've conceived contains your idea of God, it is more than your idea of God. Get it? Do you see the implications? What is greater than God? If something has more to it than whatever powers of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence you ascribe to God, isn't your idea of God basically wrong? You're worshipping a subset of God, instead of participating fully in divinity.
That's the straight Pantheist enlightenment. God is right here, right now, all the time, you are physically in touch with the divine, you are a part of the ultimate deity. I suspect it's what Jesus believed, but that's a heresy of course (no matter, I am already marked for death by the Phinehas Priesthood).
Now, the reason Christians can't understand this really: because understanding it is experiencing it. Once you do understand, God talks to you. All the time! It's really pretty distracting, which is why so many eastern monks appear to just bliss out and withdraw from the rest of the world.
Within most fundamentalist belief systems you are forced to reject this experience, because it's not God talking, but Satan, and the fact that it's self-evident to the senses is just one more strike against it. The Bible and Quran tell us the physical world is a trap for the wicked, after all; "enlightenment" must be a trick of Iblis, a sad delusion, or dangerous mental illness.
Anyway, the Hindu beetle in the pudding is the idea that many (if not most) people will not benefit from relating directly to the godhead, or else are in
It's like, got links and stuff.
I just read a large chunk of your website and I feel confident that you will never understand any explanation I might tender, nor would you wish to. I need to go take a shower now, maybe I'll eventually be able to pry this beam out of my eye.
Hinduism is essentially pantheistic, and all this seems like inconsequential bibble-babble from a pantheistic point of view. It's not particularly pertinent to real spirituality or useful philsophy. Perhaps that's why you aren't getting a lot of Hindoo responses?
PS: Pantheism is not a belief in multiple gods; that would be some form of polytheism or animism (Hinduism transcends these boundaries in a manner very confusing to American WASPs, incidentally).
Our building was designed principally by telecommunications and IS professionals about seven years ago. We had a real architect for legal compliance, but he was nearly constantly baffled by our requirements. It has a large raised floor area, about 70 by 35 feet.
Originally, there were bus & tag cables (about as thick as a fat man's thumb) under the floor as well as flood sensors and huge power lines for feeding the mainframe peripherals. The under-floor plenum is pressurized with filtered air so that cooling can be supplied anywhere in the room by simply replacing or re-orienting floor tiles.
We were only planning to run the mainframe until about 2001, and that worked out according to plan. Today, in the space where the mainframe's many refrigerator-sized boxes once stood, we have racks of 2u and 4u servers. We still have the flood sensors, mainframe-class UPS, and pressurized plenum. We also have strategically placed drag lines so we can pull new wires from various useful places without lifting more than two tiles at a time.
In the Real World [tm] the vast quantity of cat six cable required to give us mainframe-class reliability with commodity hardware is larger in both volume and mass than the mainframe cables ever were.
Unless you are going wireless, or you have a 1960s era computing infrastructure (25-pin RS232 anyone?) the number of wire runs required to serve x number of desks does not decrease significantly when you change server technologies. In fact, given that new installations typically use all home runs of twisted-pair ethernet, the amount of wiring will typically increase over that required for old-school etherhose (10b5) or coax/twinax/LAT dumb terminal infrastructures.
Trust me on this one, I've been building computer infrastructure since 20 mA loop days!
I've always wanted a reason to say that.
I've read the pertinent chapter of Matthew's (boring) treatise on naval timber as well as Darwin, and (as Darwin himself said) there is nothing missing - you are factually incorrect in your statement that "Darwin was the first to ... come up with a unified and fairly complete method for how evolution worked".
Since several other people, decades before Darwin (and without ever having seen the Galapagos!) came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection, I don't see how you can support the claim that Darwin's (admittedly independent) discovery was more important than any other biologist's work.
Darwin was a great science writer (better than Gould, IMO, who wrote up punk eke) but calling him the greatest biologist of all time is a bit over the top. His work on worms is very good, certainly, but it's not like he isolated DNA, came up with the germ theory of disease, or derived the laws of inheritance (for example).
I also disagree with your statement that Darwin's work "gave a _why_ to biology". At most, a "how" - Lamarck and Teilhard were the ones who tried to put a "why" to biology, although their work is generally scorned today.
Damn, there's really nothing OT in this post at all, is there? OK, I'll shut up now.
Unitarianism is a featherbed for falling Christians -- Charles Darwin
I think you deserve that "insightful" mod more than I do.
You're right. Mmmmmmmmmm, AbiWord!
Unfortunately no Abi replacement for Excel yet.
On the up side, there's also no analogue of the mind-destroying PowerPlod.
If that's true, you'd better come up with some new ideas, because the way you are thinking now guarantees that games development has no future.
Darwin's great achievement was as an author and a popularizer of science, not as a biologist.
The mechanism of evolution through natural selection had already been deduced by others (if you read Darwin's corpus, he generously acknowledges prior work) but Darwin was the first to write about it for the average reader, rather than for philosophers, engineers, or scientists.
Exalting Darwin above Linneaus, Lamarck, Mendel, Dawkins, Crick and Watson as a biologist is probably unfair. However, as a science writer, he was a giant, so your point still stands - it's unsuprising that he could handle a large volume of correspondence.
I referred your post to a couple of space scientists, and they essentially said that if you assume that the HST is a giant 17th century spyglass connected to a Kodak instamatic, your numbers are probably correct. But in any case the lunar landers are quite a bit bigger than 1m across, so I have no idea how you got modded "insightful".
Do not confuse the specifications for the original hubble optics with those of the ACS HRC
(High resolution camera of the Advanced Camera for Surveys), which wasn't installed until SM3B (March 2002).
Thanks, AC! You can play Mechwarrior or Civ on that baby, and it has a switch to turn off the power-sucking wireless and touchpad periphs when you are far from electric sockets!
;^)
I think I'm going to get the boss to buy me one
It takes liquid gasoline and aerates it to produce a 16:1 gas-vapor/air mixture which fuels the engine.
The engine does not run on liquid gasoline; using the logic of this posting, I am making my own fuel!
Howdy, Howdy, Howdy, I'm a real cowboy now!
I asked my brother-in-law, who pulled the data from the HST ACS, and he says he could see the Apollo landers even before the digital cleanups.
The science objective was to look at Aristarchus in UV to determine the presence of a particular mineral that was found in all the lunar rocks brought back from the Apollo 15 and 17 landing sites. They looked at those sites first as a baseline, then they looked at Aristarchus.
So: should I believe some numbers posted by somebody I don't know on slashdot (who thinks a lunar lander and its splash are less than 1 meter wide) or the eyewitness account of a man I know personally (who handles the Hubble output for a living?) You tell me!