In order of magnitude terms, they're the same thing. A real difference would be between 50M and 500M. Or between 25M and the 6M that the film grossed. When the numbers get that big, it's the exponent, not the mantissa, that really matters.
What helped me quit was knowing how much I was taking. I was drinking between 2 and 5 cups of tea a day. So the first thing I did was to limit myself to 3 per day, period. After a couple of weeks I changed to two caffeinated, one decaf. After a couple more weeks, one caf, two decaf. Then it got a little harder. Went down to half a cup of caf, the rest decaf, then a quarter, but eventually the caf portion was small enough to let go with tolerable effects. I was falling alseep at 8 pm for a while, but it was nice to be able to be awake right when I woke up, and not have to wait for the first charge. But the thing that helped most was budgeting my intake. (It also helped that the brand of tea I was drinking had a decent decaf version.)
Anti-establishment psychology also comes into play: for example, you don't see anti-business graffiti on your local coffee shop, you see it at Starbucks.
No, but you will see gang graffiti on the local coffee shop. Gangs are not part of the anti-big business movement; they have their own reasons for doing what they do. So it is, I think, with the virus writer.
Calling Linux secure because people love DDOS'ing Microsoft is faulty logic.
Absolutely right. Might be wise to remind ourselves of rtm's 1988 worm.
That wasn't a single exposure, it was a combination of exposures that added to 153,700 sec. That's actually how the deep fields are done. So you don't have to hold the telescope steady for that long (although it pretty much is anyway).
FYI: The longest HST single HST observation I found was a GHRS spectrum at 230,414 seconds. The longest NICMOS (infrared) exposure was 3839 seconds. It's rare to do a single long exposure. Most of the time, exposures are split and stacked, usually to clean out the cosmic rays.
...the beauty of digital cameras is that you don't have to do the exposure all at once. You could pause, re-aim the telescope then begin again.
Actually, the real beauty of digital cameras is that you can do several images slightly offset from each other and drizzle the light around to get a larger image at a higher. That's how Hubble's big images are done.
Dunno if they're going to do this with SIRTF, though.
According to this article, Stojanovic rigged the rules so that MAYA can't lose. It's assumed that MAY goes first and takes the center square, and the human takes either the upper left or the square beneath it.
"The Hubble was supposed to photograph wide swaths of the sky with the greatest precision ever achieved. With the blurry lens the precision was gone. However, when they repaired the lens to restore the precision, the resulting view was no longer wide swaths, and was more like looking through a keyhole at a little piece of the sky."
Your prof didn't know what he was talking about. WFPC2 has about the same field of view, 3 arcminutes, as the camera it replaced. Its three wide-field chips are the same size and resolution as the original WF/PC wide field chip set. WFPC2 has been used for wide field imaging from time to time: the Groth Strip, O'Dell's Orion mosaic, etc. But it's not a wide-field survey instrument, and was never meant to be.
The only real functionality HST lost in the 1993 servicing mission was the High Speed Photometer, which was removed to make room for the corrective optics package. Otherwise, only the on-axis WF/PC was replaced, and it was a piece of junk for other reasons. The spectrographs remained until 1997.
So yes, Hubble was, and is, a fully functioning success.
And by the way, it wasn't a blurry lens, it was a misfigured mirror.
Did anyone besides me watch Tomfoolery? Based on the nonsense poetry of Edward Lear, et al. Came on around 6am, and depending on whether you grokked it, it was either the coolest or the stupidest thing on tv.
I blame it for my inability to appreciate *real* poetry.
Each exposure will produce about 770 MB of data; the mosaic will be read out in about 20 seconds which means that Megacam will produce approximately 100 images (science fields and calibration) per night, ie 77 GB of data each night or about 1 TB of data for an average observing run.
So it will likely be 16bpp, not 24. Astronomical images are usually FITS, not JPEG.
Large images like this are becoming the norm in astronomy. Double the dimensions of a CCD and you quadruple the file size. With mosaiced chips like this one, you can easily get monster images. Then there's the processing, where you're usually juggling several similar-sized images. Looks like CEA is addressing this.
Incidentally, if they did want to compress these, some lossy algorithms (wavelets, Starck) do well on astronomical images. Most of what you lose in those cases is the sky noise, as long as you don't select too high a compression factor. The DSS did very well with 10x wavelet compression.
...the American Bar Association has withdrawn its consideration for endorsing a resolution to approve UCITA...a recently filed law suit would have been prohibited if UCITA were endorsed and adopted...
So the ABA is just protecting its litigation industry?
Slashdot Mirror
In order of magnitude terms, they're the same thing. A real difference would be between 50M and 500M. Or between 25M and the 6M that the film grossed. When the numbers get that big, it's the exponent, not the mantissa, that really matters.
Well, $50M is a bit of an exaggeration -- you're not going to find many (any?) examples of that high a figure...
It's not much of an exaggeration. Didn't Bennifer get a combined $25M for Gigli?
Come on, it's a neat invention, but it's solving a closed problem-- not worthy of being called a scientist.
You don't know many scientists, do you?
You mean we could send the useless third of our population to Mars?
What helped me quit was knowing how much I was taking. I was drinking between 2 and 5 cups of tea a day. So the first thing I did was to limit myself to 3 per day, period. After a couple of weeks I changed to two caffeinated, one decaf. After a couple more weeks, one caf, two decaf. Then it got a little harder. Went down to half a cup of caf, the rest decaf, then a quarter, but eventually the caf portion was small enough to let go with tolerable effects. I was falling alseep at 8 pm for a while, but it was nice to be able to be awake right when I woke up, and not have to wait for the first charge. But the thing that helped most was budgeting my intake. (It also helped that the brand of tea I was drinking had a decent decaf version.)
Anti-establishment psychology also comes into play: for example, you don't see anti-business graffiti on your local coffee shop, you see it at Starbucks.
No, but you will see gang graffiti on the local coffee shop. Gangs are not part of the anti-big business movement; they have their own reasons for doing what they do. So it is, I think, with the virus writer.
Calling Linux secure because people love DDOS'ing Microsoft is faulty logic.
Absolutely right. Might be wise to remind ourselves of rtm's 1988 worm.
oops, cut myself off there. Should have read:
"...a larger image at a higher pixel resolution."
That wasn't a single exposure, it was a combination of exposures that added to 153,700 sec. That's actually how the deep fields are done. So you don't have to hold the telescope steady for that long (although it pretty much is anyway).
FYI: The longest HST single HST observation I found was a GHRS spectrum at 230,414 seconds. The longest NICMOS (infrared) exposure was 3839 seconds. It's rare to do a single long exposure. Most of the time, exposures are split and stacked, usually to clean out the cosmic rays.
...the beauty of digital cameras is that you don't have to do the exposure all at once. You could pause, re-aim the telescope then begin again.
Actually, the real beauty of digital cameras is that you can do several images slightly offset from each other and drizzle the light around to get a larger image at a higher. That's how Hubble's big images are done.
Dunno if they're going to do this with SIRTF, though.
The SIRTF Science Center had a contest to name SIRTF. They'll be announcing the name in a few months.
Iceland is already doing this.
No, Microsoft killed the windowsupdate.com domain.
well, then I guess the worm did its job...
According to this article, Stojanovic rigged the rules so that MAYA can't lose. It's assumed that MAY goes first and takes the center square, and the human takes either the upper left or the square beneath it.
Your prof didn't know what he was talking about. WFPC2 has about the same field of view, 3 arcminutes, as the camera it replaced. Its three wide-field chips are the same size and resolution as the original WF/PC wide field chip set. WFPC2 has been used for wide field imaging from time to time: the Groth Strip, O'Dell's Orion mosaic, etc. But it's not a wide-field survey instrument, and was never meant to be.
The only real functionality HST lost in the 1993 servicing mission was the High Speed Photometer, which was removed to make room for the corrective optics package. Otherwise, only the on-axis WF/PC was replaced, and it was a piece of junk for other reasons. The spectrographs remained until 1997.
So yes, Hubble was, and is, a fully functioning success.
And by the way, it wasn't a blurry lens, it was a misfigured mirror.
Or they'll zap it,
"Any individual computer user who continues to steal music will face the very real risk of having to face the music."
I always knew they were two-faced.
"They say we only use 10% of the power of our brains. Imagine what we could accomplish if we could harness the other 60%..."
If companies aren't able to throw out plans and ideas...
There's a difference between throwing out an idea for something and claiming you did something when you didn't. Looks like Enron was doing the latter.
Did anyone besides me watch Tomfoolery? Based on the nonsense poetry of Edward Lear, et al. Came on around 6am, and depending on whether you grokked it, it was either the coolest or the stupidest thing on tv.
I blame it for my inability to appreciate *real* poetry.
perl -e '/keys/ && print && last for @rooms'
oops, sorry, That mod was my fault. Still getting used to Mozilla.
Even though the images are so big there is probably no problem in handling them since each science team will take home only a few images at most.
But presumably they'll be archived (at CADC?). So someone will have to handle them.
So it will likely be 16bpp, not 24. Astronomical images are usually FITS, not JPEG.
Large images like this are becoming the norm in astronomy. Double the dimensions of a CCD and you quadruple the file size. With mosaiced chips like this one, you can easily get monster images. Then there's the processing, where you're usually juggling several similar-sized images. Looks like CEA is addressing this.
Incidentally, if they did want to compress these, some lossy algorithms (wavelets, Starck) do well on astronomical images. Most of what you lose in those cases is the sky noise, as long as you don't select too high a compression factor. The DSS did very well with 10x wavelet compression.
So the ABA is just protecting its litigation industry?