Saying that radio images translated so we can view them in at a freqency visible to us are not "real" is like saying images produced using night vision goggles are not real.
The waves involved in this issue are not part of the observable spectrum for humans. Converting them to visible frequencies for our observation does not make them any less "real" except to the pedantic or to those of us who go as far as to say that observable science can't prove anything.
> Why not image the center of a galaxy that's plane is perpendicular to us?
Another factor: on that video I linked, the scale on those images is 10 light days. I don't think modern astronomy can resolve individual stars on that fine a scale, which would be required to produce the same effect while viewing another galaxy.
That's another thing that makes that image amazing to me... how close those stars are. 10 light days is nothing, cosmically speaking.
> There's roughly 25,000 light years of dust and stars to see through.
You're right... it would be impossible to view those stars using the optical spectrum. However, the scientists in this case, and for the multi-year time-lapse loop I linked to used radio waves which were unaffected by dust. One might think that interposing stars would block out the view (after all, the view is sideways through the "platter" of the galaxy) but given the far separation of the stars, the view is not blocked even at such vast distances.
I initially shared your incredulity, and I did the research, and that is indeed a radio image of the actual stars at the center of our galaxy.
Correction: It's called "Sagittarius A*" And NASA does not qualify it using terms such as "might be a black hole" or "theorised to be a black hole." They simply call it a "supermassive black hole"
> the EHT team is ultimately after to prove the existence of black holes."
It's already been proven. There is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and it's been named "Sagitarius A"
Using infrared telesopes, you can "see" stars orbiting the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Orbits of about 28 stars have been observed and using math, the mass of the stars and the required mass of the black hole has been calculated. Only a black hole can account for the kinds of orbits you see those stars doing.
It is a sight to behold and at first I could not believe it. Watching the stars at the frickin center of the galaxy orbit a black hole is a stunning sight once you truly grok what you are seeing.
Realize that this video is not an artist's intepretation, but is actual imagery of stars orbiting something of immense mass, something which can only be a black hole.
Most grand juries are lapdogs of the prosecutor, it is true. When they go off on their own, they are called "runaway grand jurys" and courts and prosecutors don't want them to know it is possible. Much like jury nullification... no court will instruct a jury that they can nullify, similarly, no court is going to tell a grand jury they can subpoena on their own without the prosecutor saying OK.
But it is rare for a grand jury to go off on their own these days. This was not always the case. Historically, grand juries were independent of the prosecutors. But these days, it is a rare thing, and the Ferguson grand jury probably played the lap dog.
I've worked as an election judge in Colorado and in Pennsylvania and in both states I got paid between $100 and $150 a day for election day, and got paid for the training. It's not a bad way to spend a vacation day. Get paid for the vacation day, and the hundred and some bucks from the county, and get that vibe you get being a part of the democratic process. Plus, for places with electronic voting machines, it's good to have a technically oriented person there, because it is, after all, a computer and setting them up is usually not easy for non-techies.
This law does not ban indexing by libraries, by the legal system, and by a multitude of other means which have legitimate societal uses where there is a legitimate need for the information. The law does not advocate removal of information, only how and when it is indexed and presented.
This guy I replied to, who proposing the source be deleted does not understand the scope of the law. He proposes deletion of material, when that would countervene the intention of the law which is to allow proper and needed accees to historical record, not just up and deleting history.
> If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it.
I disagree. A search engine creating links is new creation. New publishing. Banning the creation of news links is WAY different from altering a historic record. Where does it stop? Do you delete history books? You have read 1984, right? Deleting historic records is pretty damned close to changing it in the style of 1984's dystopian future.
Yeah. By making sure the 150 flying people over from West Africa every day still can hop on a plane and get here. Because our economy would be devistated if those 150 could not get here.
Got ebola? Don't want to be cared for by pariahs in grass huts? Hop a flight to the USA and get a half million dollars worth of care for free.
I'm serious. You never know when you're going to have to deal with the fact that your IRS head is reaming the Tea Party a new one, or that you Attorney General just got done giving you a hummer and is asking what other parts of the Constitution you want him to piss on today. You can't just be 100% open about these things. You neck bearded basement dwellers have NO IDEA how the real world works.
> So they are re moving the rights of the government. Which is to be able to search you under some conditions.
They are not "removing the rights of the government" to search anybody. They still can. But the people are under no obligation to maintain their lives so as to be ready prepared for a government inspector to drop by at any time and say, "Let me take a look at your paperwork, citizen".
And the first time they take someone to court and reveal they can crack this encryption, the cat's out of the bag. Which is why they won't take someone to court if they have to reveal such a thing. Which means that, pratically speaking, in this case people are safe from worrying about the feebs getting into their iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
> I was most recently using Debian, but my computer got messed up after I did an update and that SystemD thing got installed.
Debian stable still uses initd. The only way you get systemd is by running unstable.
Saying that radio images translated so we can view them in at a freqency visible to us are not "real" is like saying images produced using night vision goggles are not real.
The waves involved in this issue are not part of the observable spectrum for humans. Converting them to visible frequencies for our observation does not make them any less "real" except to the pedantic or to those of us who go as far as to say that observable science can't prove anything.
> Why not image the center of a galaxy that's plane is perpendicular to us?
Another factor: on that video I linked, the scale on those images is 10 light days. I don't think modern astronomy can resolve individual stars on that fine a scale, which would be required to produce the same effect while viewing another galaxy.
That's another thing that makes that image amazing to me... how close those stars are. 10 light days is nothing, cosmically speaking.
Years. That is a time lapse loop, and the current year is in the upper left corner.
> There's roughly 25,000 light years of dust and stars to see through.
You're right... it would be impossible to view those stars using the optical spectrum. However, the scientists in this case, and for the multi-year time-lapse loop I linked to used radio waves which were unaffected by dust. One might think that interposing stars would block out the view (after all, the view is sideways through the "platter" of the galaxy) but given the far separation of the stars, the view is not blocked even at such vast distances.
I initially shared your incredulity, and I did the research, and that is indeed a radio image of the actual stars at the center of our galaxy.
Correction: It's called "Sagittarius A*" And NASA does not qualify it using terms such as "might be a black hole" or "theorised to be a black hole." They simply call it a "supermassive black hole"
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...
> the EHT team is ultimately after to prove the existence of black holes."
It's already been proven. There is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and it's been named "Sagitarius A"
Using infrared telesopes, you can "see" stars orbiting the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Orbits of about 28 stars have been observed and using math, the mass of the stars and the required mass of the black hole has been calculated. Only a black hole can account for the kinds of orbits you see those stars doing.
It is a sight to behold and at first I could not believe it. Watching the stars at the frickin center of the galaxy orbit a black hole is a stunning sight once you truly grok what you are seeing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Realize that this video is not an artist's intepretation, but is actual imagery of stars orbiting something of immense mass, something which can only be a black hole.
See, for e.g.:
"What is a "runaway" grand jury?" http://campus.udayton.edu/~gra...
Most grand juries are lapdogs of the prosecutor, it is true. When they go off on their own, they are called "runaway grand jurys" and courts and prosecutors don't want them to know it is possible. Much like jury nullification... no court will instruct a jury that they can nullify, similarly, no court is going to tell a grand jury they can subpoena on their own without the prosecutor saying OK.
But it is rare for a grand jury to go off on their own these days. This was not always the case. Historically, grand juries were independent of the prosecutors. But these days, it is a rare thing, and the Ferguson grand jury probably played the lap dog.
All the facts they asked for. They have the power to subpoena anyone they want.
I've worked as an election judge in Colorado and in Pennsylvania and in both states I got paid between $100 and $150 a day for election day, and got paid for the training. It's not a bad way to spend a vacation day. Get paid for the vacation day, and the hundred and some bucks from the county, and get that vibe you get being a part of the democratic process. Plus, for places with electronic voting machines, it's good to have a technically oriented person there, because it is, after all, a computer and setting them up is usually not easy for non-techies.
That's why Linus uses Gnome, I suppose.
Not Debian stable.
This law does not ban indexing by libraries, by the legal system, and by a multitude of other means which have legitimate societal uses where there is a legitimate need for the information. The law does not advocate removal of information, only how and when it is indexed and presented.
This guy I replied to, who proposing the source be deleted does not understand the scope of the law. He proposes deletion of material, when that would countervene the intention of the law which is to allow proper and needed accees to historical record, not just up and deleting history.
If you can't see the difference between banning new creation and altering the historic record, I don't know what to tell you.
> If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it.
I disagree. A search engine creating links is new creation. New publishing. Banning the creation of news links is WAY different from altering a historic record. Where does it stop? Do you delete history books? You have read 1984, right? Deleting historic records is pretty damned close to changing it in the style of 1984's dystopian future.
If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola.
Yeah. By making sure the 150 flying people over from West Africa every day still can hop on a plane and get here. Because our economy would be devistated if those 150 could not get here.
Got ebola? Don't want to be cared for by pariahs in grass huts? Hop a flight to the USA and get a half million dollars worth of care for free.
I'm serious. You never know when you're going to have to deal with the fact that your IRS head is reaming the Tea Party a new one, or that you Attorney General just got done giving you a hummer and is asking what other parts of the Constitution you want him to piss on today. You can't just be 100% open about these things. You neck bearded basement dwellers have NO IDEA how the real world works.
They could, y'know, "pretend".
Write, compile and distribute code which bypasses integral security features in the software. What could go wrong?
"Prizes are for children." -- Charles Ives, upon being given, but refusing, the Pulitzer prize
> So they are re moving the rights of the government. Which is to be able to search you under some conditions.
They are not "removing the rights of the government" to search anybody. They still can. But the people are under no obligation to maintain their lives so as to be ready prepared for a government inspector to drop by at any time and say, "Let me take a look at your paperwork, citizen".
And the first time they take someone to court and reveal they can crack this encryption, the cat's out of the bag. Which is why they won't take someone to court if they have to reveal such a thing. Which means that, pratically speaking, in this case people are safe from worrying about the feebs getting into their iPhone.
One movie, coming up:
"Sling Blade".
You'll thank me later.
(I reckon I'll have me some of the bigguns. Ummmm hmmm.)