The main problem with repairing hubble is the fact that ther is no longer any shuttle capable of containing it in it's hold
This is only a problem if you want to return HST safely to the ground in a Shuttle cargo hold. As you say, there is no longer a shuttle in which it will fit, because the external airlock for ISS makes the bay too short.
That's a fine, valid position. Go find your "authoritative source" and be happy.
Not that I can claim to speak for wikipedians, but I imagine it's the same as most open-source projects: we need participants, not mere users. If you're looking for a product, any number of companies will sell you a fine product. If you want to be part of something, jump on board. That's the wiki way, the open source way.
Absolutely. That's precisely why users who do see something wrong in the wiki need to fix the problem, rather than just say "that's wrong, wiki sucks".
If you see an error in a wikipedia article and you do not edit the article and correct the error, then you are not using wikipedia correctly. No wonder you're dissatisfied!
OK, you saved your face with semantics, but what you said was very misleading.
What?! No it wasn't misleading. Neutron stars cannot have nuclear reactions. Period. If one happens to be in a mass-transfer binary, the infalling material will obviously burn, but that's *not* the NS, it's the infalling material!
Misleading? Sure, the same way saying "Dogs can't fly" is misleading, because you saw one on an airplane once. Sheesh.
Out of curiosity, what would you say if someone asks you whether nuclear fusion takes place in a neutron star? Would you really say "yes it does"? Now *that's* misleading...
I'm about to get my PhD in astrophysics, so hmmmmph.;-)
The intensive pressure at the surface plus the heat makes the H fuse.
Well, that would be fusion *on* a neutron star, not *in* it. It's not just semantics; the process you are talking about does nothing to support the NS against gravity, since it's at the surface. The point is, a neutron star, by itself doesn't have any fusion.
*sigh* So many people on slashdot who think they know everything.
LOL, take it easy, man. I have a PhD in astrophysics, how about you?;)
You are a lucky man, Lord Pillage; you now have a golden opportunity to expand your horizons by learning all about white dwarfs and neutron stars, and about the stark and dramatic physical differences between them.
I'm confused. You were talking about differences in the compositions (the "materials" present in the spectrum); now you're talking about thermal blackbody radiation.
Planets don't have near the mass of stars (not even close).
Huh? I guess it depends on whether you consider brown dwarfs to be "planets" for the purposes of this discussion, but by definition, anything that is not massive enough to fuse Hydrogen is not a star, even if that object is just slightly lower than the threshhold mass. There's no great quantum leap in mass between those things that burn, and those that do not. The distribution of masses is smooth.
The difference is going to be that a star has the thermonuclear reaction which is going to cause intense radiation to be emmited.
Again, the very lowest-mass stars have pretty feeble luminosities, so your statements that there is a "drastic" difference due to "intense" radiation from stars is pretty misleading...
What materials are you thinking of? Low-mass stars and high-mass planets should have very similar composition. The only distinction I can think of is that true stars will not have lithium in their atmospheres, because it gets consumed when you have thermonuclear reactions (low mass stars are fully convective, so the surface stuff gets churned down to the center where the burning takes place).
Anyway, that's something that planets have but stars don't have, the other way around from what you said.
It is impossible to misinterpret an extremely hot stellar body with a relatively cool planet.
I wouldn't say that. Extremely low-mass stars are very faint and not much hotter than the most massive planets (especially when the body in question receives heat from a much hotter companion star, as is the case with this object).
There is no sharp distinction, empirically speaking, between a very low-mass star and a very high-mass planet (i.e., a brown dwarf).
The parent post is full of jargon buzzwords, but is totally wrong and nonsensical. Brown dwarfs are not electron degenerate, and they certainly aren't freaking neutron stars!
You chose an interesting example, considering that Robert Novak refused to reveal his source, and no one offered a legal challenge to force him to do so.
Anyway, sure, journalists cannot obstruct Justice. So why didn't Apple simply get a judge to order the journalist/blogger to reveal their source, rather than sue them?
(google for this sentence and see how often it occurs)
Sorry, not impressed.
"Contracts are promises that the law will enforce": 5780
"Freedom of speech": 10,400,000
The "argument from googlerank" is pointless.
The law in this case does not care about "journalism and blogging"; but simply that they are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
BS. Journalists have always had the power to keep their sources confidential! No one forced Robert Novak to reveal the identity of the traitor in the White House who outed Valerie Plame. That person committed a serious felony, with life-and-death consequences.
Contract law is easily trumped by the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press. So, yes, it is about Journalism.
Thomas Paine was not a "journalist" under the judge's definition. Nor were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They were the bloggers of their day.
So when their peers wrote Amendment I into the Constitution, do you really suppose they intended to extend the right to press only to "professional" journalists? It's pathetic, and wrong. It's Wrongthetic.
Exactly. It's like claiming the laws against murder are a blow to the freedom to use a knife.
So, you are implying there's a law against publishing insider information sent to you for that purpose? Silly me, I thought we enjoyed freedom of the press in this country! Send some federal agents over to Bob Woodward's house and have him arrested!
Apple's (legitimate) complaint is that they have employees leaking secret information. They have no right to use the courts to strong-arm the press into identifying the culprits.
I think the free market is great. My post was about the hypocrisy of those who espouse the Free Market as a solution to all possible problems, and then support anti-competitive legislation like this.
After all, if one really believed in an unfettered competitive marketplace, then the only response to the rise of municipal WiFi would be: "Bring 'em on".
Ah, yes. The free-market system, unfettered from legislative "regulations". Behold its efficiency! Marvel at its ability to out-compete any misguided "Big government" attempts to duplicate that which the market can provide!
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, but everyone knows that only 0.00001% of gentoo users use KDE (I am one of them). Most gentooers use [open|flux]box, fvwm, or gnome.
(assuming the monthly Desktop Pics threads are representative)
The main problem with repairing hubble is the fact that ther is no longer any shuttle capable of containing it in it's hold
This is only a problem if you want to return HST safely to the ground in a Shuttle cargo hold. As you say, there is no longer a shuttle in which it will fit, because the external airlock for ISS makes the bay too short.
However, for a repair mission, HST does not have to fit in the cargo bay; it is mounted inside the bay sticking straight up out of it.
Exactly. We are google's product, not its customers. Same goes for TV or any other ad-supported media.
That's a fine, valid position. Go find your "authoritative source" and be happy.
Not that I can claim to speak for wikipedians, but I imagine it's the same as most open-source projects: we need participants, not mere users. If you're looking for a product, any number of companies will sell you a fine product. If you want to be part of something, jump on board. That's the wiki way, the open source way.
The problem is if you don't know it is an error.
Absolutely. That's precisely why users who do see something wrong in the wiki need to fix the problem, rather than just say "that's wrong, wiki sucks".
If you see an error in a wikipedia article and you do not edit the article and correct the error, then you are not using wikipedia correctly. No wonder you're dissatisfied!
Slashdot.org...it's DOT COM!
</homestar>
OK, you saved your face with semantics, but what you said was very misleading.
;-)
What?! No it wasn't misleading. Neutron stars cannot have nuclear reactions. Period. If one happens to be in a mass-transfer binary, the infalling material will obviously burn, but that's *not* the NS, it's the infalling material!
Misleading? Sure, the same way saying "Dogs can't fly" is misleading, because you saw one on an airplane once. Sheesh.
Out of curiosity, what would you say if someone asks you whether nuclear fusion takes place in a neutron star? Would you really say "yes it does"? Now *that's* misleading...
I'm about to get my PhD in astrophysics, so hmmmmph.
Congratulations! See you at the AAS sometime...
The intensive pressure at the surface plus the heat makes the H fuse.
;)
Well, that would be fusion *on* a neutron star, not *in* it. It's not just semantics; the process you are talking about does nothing to support the NS against gravity, since it's at the surface. The point is, a neutron star, by itself doesn't have any fusion.
*sigh* So many people on slashdot who think they know everything.
LOL, take it easy, man. I have a PhD in astrophysics, how about you?
You are a lucky man, Lord Pillage; you now have a golden opportunity to expand your horizons by learning all about white dwarfs and neutron stars, and about the stark and dramatic physical differences between them.
Enjoy!
I'm confused. You were talking about differences in the compositions (the "materials" present in the spectrum); now you're talking about thermal blackbody radiation.
Planets don't have near the mass of stars (not even close).
Huh? I guess it depends on whether you consider brown dwarfs to be "planets" for the purposes of this discussion, but by definition, anything that is not massive enough to fuse Hydrogen is not a star, even if that object is just slightly lower than the threshhold mass. There's no great quantum leap in mass between those things that burn, and those that do not. The distribution of masses is smooth.
The difference is going to be that a star has the thermonuclear reaction which is going to cause intense radiation to be emmited.
Again, the very lowest-mass stars have pretty feeble luminosities, so your statements that there is a "drastic" difference due to "intense" radiation from stars is pretty misleading...
What materials are you thinking of? Low-mass stars and high-mass planets should have very similar composition. The only distinction I can think of is that true stars will not have lithium in their atmospheres, because it gets consumed when you have thermonuclear reactions (low mass stars are fully convective, so the surface stuff gets churned down to the center where the burning takes place).
Anyway, that's something that planets have but stars don't have, the other way around from what you said.
It is impossible to misinterpret an extremely hot stellar body with a relatively cool planet.
I wouldn't say that. Extremely low-mass stars are very faint and not much hotter than the most massive planets (especially when the body in question receives heat from a much hotter companion star, as is the case with this object).
There is no sharp distinction, empirically speaking, between a very low-mass star and a very high-mass planet (i.e., a brown dwarf).
IANAP, but I think no thermonuclear reactions take place in neutron 'stars'
Correct. It's not possible to fuse atomic nuclei when the object is itself, one large nucleus.
The parent post is full of jargon buzzwords, but is totally wrong and nonsensical. Brown dwarfs are not electron degenerate, and they certainly aren't freaking neutron stars!
You chose an interesting example, considering that Robert Novak refused to reveal his source, and no one offered a legal challenge to force him to do so.
Anyway, sure, journalists cannot obstruct Justice. So why didn't Apple simply get a judge to order the journalist/blogger to reveal their source, rather than sue them?
Sorry, not impressed.
The "argument from googlerank" is pointless.
The law in this case does not care about "journalism and blogging"; but simply that they are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
BS. Journalists have always had the power to keep their sources confidential! No one forced Robert Novak to reveal the identity of the traitor in the White House who outed Valerie Plame. That person committed a serious felony, with life-and-death consequences.
Contract law is easily trumped by the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press. So, yes, it is about Journalism.
This is so sad.
Thomas Paine was not a "journalist" under the judge's definition. Nor were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They were the bloggers of their day.
So when their peers wrote Amendment I into the Constitution, do you really suppose they intended to extend the right to press only to "professional" journalists? It's pathetic, and wrong. It's Wrongthetic.
Exactly. It's like claiming the laws against murder are a blow to the freedom to use a knife.
So, you are implying there's a law against publishing insider information sent to you for that purpose? Silly me, I thought we enjoyed freedom of the press in this country! Send some federal agents over to Bob Woodward's house and have him arrested!
Apple's (legitimate) complaint is that they have employees leaking secret information. They have no right to use the courts to strong-arm the press into identifying the culprits.
Not to be overly pedantic (well, this is slashdot, right?), but 1.0 kg - 50 microgram = 0.99999995 kg.
But to think that Google will automagically give you the right information is just rediculous.
Perhaps. But it will automagically give you the right spelling of "ridiculous".
"you have got to be effin' kidding me."
I think the free market is great. My post was about the hypocrisy of those who espouse the Free Market as a solution to all possible problems, and then support anti-competitive legislation like this.
After all, if one really believed in an unfettered competitive marketplace, then the only response to the rise of municipal WiFi would be: "Bring 'em on".
Ah, yes. The free-market system, unfettered from legislative "regulations". Behold its efficiency! Marvel at its ability to out-compete any misguided "Big government" attempts to duplicate that which the market can provide!