People get damn tired of your whining about being modded down by "cowards" and "losers" as you like to call them. It's quite possibly the stupidest comment I've ever heard, to call someone a coward for modding you down, when moderation doesn't allow someone to then go post in the same discussion.
If you weren't such an idiot, you'd realize that I called the person a loser and an intellectual coward for choosing five separate posts by me on multiple subjects and modding them down. They didn't mod the posts down because of their content, they modded them down in a childish attempt to "punish" me.
You're an arrogant prick and an annoying troll. Slashdot would be a much better place without losers like you.
That would really hurt coming from someone I respected. Coming from you, it's just funny. You're just another pathetic whiner.
- FortKnox, posting anonymously to avoid the karma hit
For once, I can authoritatively say that "retraining" America is unrealistic at best and impossible for most unless you can have someone support you while you go back to school.
Agreed. Retraining was a realistic approach to move people from one semi-skilled blue-collar industry to another. The steelworker could be retrained to be a bricklayer in a fairly short time period. It's wholly different when someone is in a well-compensated professional position that requires a college degree and for whom experience is key to landing a good job. You can't spend 30-90 days and retrain a software engineer for a similarly compensated profession (veterinarian, lawyer, CPA, etc.).
If the politicians don't get a clue about this quickly, this country will be in for an ugly, decades-long, economic downward spiral.
I'm always curious about what the "quit whining" crowd work on since they don't seem very concerned.
I'd guess that most of them are working on their college degrees, tans, video gaming skills, or high-school homework -- while they live off mom and dad. They don't have a clue about reality and think that it's perfectly reasonable to tell the middle-aged head of a household with a spouse and two kids to just go back to college for four years and learn a new profession.
I am a software engineer specializing in embedded systems and computer security. Most recently I have been working for a defense contractor -- partially because work that requires clearances is not easily outsourced.
It's also true that many of them wouldn't have had their high-paying IT jobs in the first place had not huge numbers of secretaries (among others) lost their jobs to computers and word processors.
I am unconvinced by that assertion. There are plenty of secretaries, receptionists, and other support personnel where I work. A computer can't arrange for a caterer to bring in food for a meeting. A computer can't greet a guest at the door, hand them a badge, get them coffee, or escort them through the building. A computer can't take printed materials, covers, etc. and assemble them into binders. A computer can't drive to the local store to pick up supplies in an "emergency."
Even if we take your assertion at face value, the skill sets and salaries have to be considered. Suppose a secretary can't find work in his/her field. How much training will it take to prepare for a job that pays a similar amount? Not a four year degree. Not tens of thousands of dollars. She can probably go from being a secretary to doing data entry with no formal training.
Welcome to the global economy.. something that the U.S. has been pushing. Get busy creating value and not sitting on your ass complaining and you won't have anything to worry about.
The average Indian Software Engineer is paid about $6,000 (U.S.) per year. How much value do you think you can "create"? Enough to justify paying you what ten Indian software engineers earn? You right wing apologists and your bullshit-speak (e.g., "creating value") really sicken me. There are huge numbers of hard-working, intelligent Americans that have lost their jobs to outsourcing and all you want to do is blame the victims.
Admit it: there's not a damned thing that most people can do. What's the father of two supposed to do? Send his kids to Neverland Ranch and convince his wife to turn tricks to support him while he goes back to college for four years?
...maybe our schools will admit that score-norming and social promotion aren't really teaching, once their charges have to compete with the products of less 'enlightened' educational systems.
Tech jobs are not going to India because Indians are better educated. The jobs are going there because the average wage for an Indian software engineer is about $6,000 per year. That doesn't cover the yearly cost of leasing the office space and furniture for a software engineer in the U.S. This isn't about quality of work. It's about corporate greed and seven-figure CEO's laying off middle-class U.S. workers.
For optical use (i.e. sticking your eye at the eyepiece) this will matter alot especially on targets like the moon, planets, or double stars where contrast matters. It shouldn't be too bad on faint fuzzies (galaxies, nebulae etc) and that 18" aperature doesn't hurt.
That's somewhat contrary to my experience. A target like a nebula is much more subtle in contrast than, say, craters in shadow relief on the moon. Deep space objects are low-brightness and low-contrast compared to stars, planets, the moon, etc. Sadly, by going with such a large central obstruction, he loses a significant amount of the light that he's gathered, though.
I agree with your comments on the collimation of SCTs. I have three Celestrons and they simply never even need touch-ups.
CCD astrophotography has some folks that use lots of short (order of a couple seconds) exposures that are then derotated and and aligned and then digitally composited.
Although such imaging is sometimes done, it's normally done with a driven scope (although not necessarily equatorially mounted). Without a driven scope, the CCD-captured images must not only be derotated, but they also must be shifted. So the only real way to do it is with lots of images is to reposition the scope manually between sets of exposures. The truss tube design will tend to lessen wind-driven shaking, but you're right about the weight issue. Dobsonians need some kind of adjustable counterweight system (or sliding saddle) in order to handle heavy accessories -- something which his scope lacks.
I could have gone on further, but resisted the temptation to write a book. In short, I find no advantage to his design that's not bettered by the traditional folded Newtonian. In fact, the thought of craning my neck skywards to see the eyepiece makes me crince. I'd much rather have a traditional eyepiece mounted perpendicular to the tube.
If none of his claims were meant as tongue-in-cheek, then I suggest that he do some more studying of telescope optics, mounts, astrophotography, and amateur astronomy in general. That said, the construction of any telescope, especially one of that aperture, is a major undertaking and I wish him the best for his efforts.
There are more ways to fold telescope optical paths than most people imagine as shown here.
That said, the referenced article is filled with inaccuracies and I almost wonder if it's intended as some kind of practical joke. For example, it describes the "tracking accuracy" of Schmidt Cassegrains, Newtonians, and Folded Newtonians as "poor", "poor", and "very high" respectively. That's bunk. The tracking accuracy is determined by the mounting and drive. In the case of his scope, it's on an altazimuth (Dobsonian, to be specific) mount with no apparent drive at all, so it doesn't track anything! The author mispells Cassegrain repeatedly throughout the article, which I would hardly expect from someone knowledgeable about telescope optics. He describes the mount of a conventional Newtonian primary mirror as "fussy" while describing the mount of the primary in the folded Newtonian as "robust." There is no difference. The folding of the light path at the other end of the tube has nothing to do with how the primary is mounted. He describes the "weight" of Cassegrains and Newtonians as "heavy" and classifies the Folded Newtonian as "Very Light", yet there is no evidence that his folded Newtonian is any lighter than a conventional Newtonian -- and it's probably heavier due to the larger secondary, larger secondary mount, and the baffled tube that holds the focuser. He says that the "Field Width" of Schmidt Cassegrains, Newtonians, and his Folded Newtonian are "Narrow", "Wide", and "Very Wide" respectively. That's simply wrong and illogical -- as anyone with a reasonable knowledge of telescope optics can tell you. The tilt of the secondary mirror has no effect on real or apparent field width. In fact, because he is advocating a longer focal ratio (f8), he will have a narrower real field of view than a typical Dobsonian Newtonian (typically f4-f6) with the same eyepiece.
He makes absurd claims like "So the only real advantage of a small diagonal in a large telescope is a tiny improvement in contrast/resolution that can easily be recaptured with image processing." Anyone who knows anything about telescope construction can tell you that the secondary obstruction causes light loss and that's a serious concern. Also, image processing implies astrophotography. Astrophotography implies long exposure times and that necessitates an equatorially mounted telescope -- which his is not.
He's using a truss tube design similar to that used by many makers of large commercial Dobsonian telescopes. In addition to being very lightweight, it's easily broken-down for transport. The triangulation makes it extremely strong and rigid.
Maybe that's true of the hardwares stores in Outer Bumphuck, Alabama, but they sell metric screws at every major hardware store that I've been in lately. They may not have the exact style that you want for a PC case, but they sure as heck will have metric screws.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
You know, you really is right. About your PS, of course.
Thanks. You're on my friends list, too, now. We may not agree, but I respect you.
I am irritated by any elaboration on eugenics, because I know many (many many) people especifically with Down's Syndrome that have beauty and bring beauty to their families lifes. My wife has an uncle that has cerebral paralysis and, altough have 50 years old, has the development of a 9 months old baby. And you know what? He teaches us things. We would be worse people, if it was not for his presence. This is important for us to learn.
All very valid and I, in no way, want you or anyone else to think that I am wishing someone now with us had never been born. Some of the most intellectually and emotionally gifted people in the world have genetic disorders, diseases, and handicaps.
I went to school with someone who lost his sight from a sports injury. He was well-adjusted and graduated with honors and we all learned much about courage from him. But just as I would not purposely try to destroy someone else's sight, neither would I knowingly pass on genes for blindness.
We may disagree, but what I am suggesting is not eugenics. Eugenics are attempts to improve the human race through controlled selective breeding. I'm not suggesting that anyone control breeding or select who may have kids. But I do think that parents should consider if it is fair to bring a child into the world with a potentially devastating genetic problem. And they should consider the effect that such genes could have on other parents many generations removed.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
What do we know about this family? They have three intelligent children who were blind from birth. Do we know that this blindness was caused by a genetic predisposition? It certainly seems to be implied by circumstance, but it is by no means a given. Without knowing about environmental conditions (industrial pollutants, natural mutagens, etc) drug use (medications) by the mother, and a score of other possible causes that effect the developing feotus, we do not know if this blindness was caused by a genetic anomoly.
Now you are simply wasting my time. In my original post, I quoted the Wired article:
Ramy, along with two of his three brothers, has been blind since birth due to a genetic defect.
Since you didn't read the article, didn't read my posting, and simply used this as an excuse to call me an "asshole", I guess I've just been trolled.
I attempt to illustrate my point byu putting you on the recieving end of your judgements and you turn it into an obscenity fest
You were the one who called me an "asshole", so it was you who started in with the gratuitous vulgarity and insults. (By the way, obscenity and vulgarity are not the same thing.)
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Touche. My hat is off to you for a great one-liner -- even if it was at my expense.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
While a poetic expression, it hardly will be comforting to the family that gives birth to a deaf, blind, immuno-compromised, Down's Syndrome child that requires 24/7 care. And that's what happens when recessive genes for these traits are propagated through the gene pool. The traits become more and more frequent and combine with one another.
There is Stephen Hawking and then there are the other millions of people with Huntington's Disease, most of whom lack his intelligence and many of whom spend their foreshortened lives in nursing homes. Before you go advocating the propagation of such horrible genetic defects through the gene pool, read about them. Here's how the Hundinton's Disease Society of America describes the condition:
Huntington's Disease(HD) is a devastating, degenerative brain disorder for which there is, at present, no effective treatment or cure. HD slowly diminishes the affected individual's ability to walk, think, talk and reason. Eventually, the person with HD becomes totally dependent upon others for his or her care. Huntington's Disease profoundly affects the lives of entire families: emotionally, socially and economically.
Named for Dr. George Huntington, who first described this hereditary disorder in 1872, HD is now recognized as one of the more common genetic disorders. More than a quarter of a million Americans have HD or are "at risk" of inheriting the disease from an affected parent. HD affects as many people as Hemophilia, Cystic Fibrosis or muscular dystrophy.
Early symptoms of Huntington's Disease may affect cognitive ability or mobility and include depression, mood swings, forgetfulness, clumsiness, involuntary twitching and lack of coordination. As the disease progresses, concentration and short-term memory diminish and involuntary movements of the head, trunk and limbs increase. Walking, speaking and swallowing abilities deteriorate. Eventually the person is unable to care for him or herself. Death follows from complications such as choking, infection or heart failure.
HD typically begins in mid-life, between the ages of 30 and 45, though onset may occur as early as the age of 2. Children who develop the juvenile form of the disease rarely live to adulthood. HD affects males and females equally and crosses all ethnic and racial boundaries. Each child of a person with HD has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the fatal gene. Everyone who carries the gene will develop the disease.
And that's the kind of thing that you are in favor of perpetuating through the gene pool?
P.S. I find it absurd that you would mark me as a "FOE" simply because we disagree. How intellectually hollow!
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Deafness is a no brainer, right? What about diabetes? Heart disease? Depression? Allergies? Where is the rational point where the line is drawn? Or is it like porno; "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it?"
There is no black and white answer as you astutely point out. I would hope that parents would make ethical choices. If something is debillitating, then it should not be passed on. Mild allergies to seafood are not in that category. Allergies to peanuts that cause anaphylactic shock just from smelling peanuts probably is.
If I discovered that I had a gene for blindness, deafness, Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, or SCID, then I would not pass that gene on. If I wanted a child, I would adopt.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 0, Troll
What reason would "normal" people have to develop their abilities, like their intelligence, beyond than what would be considered "normal"? They definitely wouldn't contribute much, or anything interesting at least.
Yeah, think about what would Einstein, Plato, and Kasparov achieved if they had been born sighted. Oh, wait... They were.
Most people are driven to better themselves. They read challenging books, participate in difficult activities, whether mental or physical, and learn new skills. I did not decide to stop learning just because I reached "normal." Did you?
You are ignoring the big picture. What happens to the poor couple that gives birth to a child with Down's Syndrome, blindness, deafness, and a non-functional immune system because they happened to get the unlucky set of recessive genes together?
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Who are you to say they should not breed?
Because perpetuating genes for blindness results in needless suffering for generations to come and because being blind is such a devastating hurdle to overcome. Recessive genes for blindness can surface many generations later, causing a couple with no suspicion whatsoever to give birth to a blind child. That couple may not have the resources to raise a blind child.
That they are not as productive as your average sighted person?
No, they are not. The average blind person is shut out of countless opportunities that sighted persons have. But productivity is not the issue. I'm not some right-winger who thinks that everyone is on the Earth to drive up the GNP of their respective countries.
Have a little compassion. Think about families a few generations down the road that will have blind children because these people perpetuated these recessive genes. Think about how devastating that will be for them. Think about what your quality of life would be if you had been born blind.
Perhaps your parents should have stopped breeding rather than bring yet another asshole into this world.
You are living proof that it's possible for a woman to conceive and give birth to a living turd after she's been ass-f*cked.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
And the day you will discover your adopted child is genetically "deficient", you will kill him or just sterilize him ?
I'd urge him/her to adopt when they grow up.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
If he is living, then it is natural selection. Humans are not animals.
Did they even have biology class at your school?
We do not live by natural selection since 3 million years. We are differently structured then[sic] wolf packs.
That's basically correct (except for the timeframe). And that's why it's important for people to make intelligent and compassionate choices. If you and your wife have a genetic defect which causes blindness, then is it fair to pass on those genes, knowing that doing so could result in other sighted couples decades from now giving birth to blind children? Is that your idea of fairness?
Except for people like you.
You are an ass.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Where you do you think creativity, intelligence, and other good "abnormalities" come from?
An abnormality is not always a defect. Being abnormally strong, intelligent, athletic, etc. are not defective traits. Being blind, deaf, or with severe combined immunodeficiency ("bubble-boy" syndrome) are defects.
Any basis of judging the "goodness" of one person over another cannot be justified unless it is based on such a reduced quality of life that no life would be better than any life at all (potential examples: down syndrom, twins conjoined at the heart, etc). ANd I would hardly file "blindness" under that category.
So it's up to you to decide. I see.
But to have some ultimate idea that the general quality of our society can be improved by "sound scientific reasoning" about what is a good contribution and bad contribution to man-kind's general gene pool -- that is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard.
Do you think that someone born blind, by and large, has the same quality of life as someone born sighted? Do you think that someone born with Huntington's Disease has as good a quality of life as someone without it? Why pass on genetic traits which reduce quality of life and which may spring up generations later (when they are recessive genes)?
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Okay, then let's disregard the Nazis, and say you are more on-terms with the form of eugenics that Sanger supported. Even planned-parenthood doesn't support those ideas of Sanger (their founder).
Nor do I support her ideas. You have to remember that Margaret Sanger believed in the fallacy of superior and inferior races. I do not.
No, you just don't understand what prejudice is.
If prejudging me based on your preconceived notions about Slashdot users isn't prejudice, what is it?
It's quite simple. If people believe they would be better off not having been born, it only takes a couple minutes for them to rectify that problem if they choose.
So you're advocating suicide for those with genetically inherited conditions? Wow, you are out there.
They contribute to society, the do not take away from it, so what possible reason can you have to justify condeming people?
I did not suggest "condemning" anyone. I said that the parents should have voluntarily stopped breeding when it became clear that they had a genetic flaw that leads to blindness.
You know that blind people have contributed to society, but don't think that they should ever be born.
No, that is not even close to what I said. People disfigured by fire have also contributed to society, but I don't support dousing people in gasoline and throwing matches at them. There is a difference between saying that we should not pass on genetic flaws once they become apparent and saying that people born with those flaws in the past should have been killed, urged to commit suicide, etc.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Nice try, troll-boy.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Keep your Nazi/White Supremicist crap off of Slashdot. Being non-"Aryan" has nothing to do with genetic defects you ignorant ass.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Wow... I thought we'd heard the end of this with the death of Hitler's Nazis, and Margaret Sanger.
You are (still) an idiot. You don't understand the difference between unscientific stupidity like Nazi Eugenics (based on "racial purity") and a desire to keep kids from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease and other genetic defects.
I would assume that you are a skinny geeky guy (possibly not, but likely since you are posting here) and in the world of hunting and gathering, you would be dead, because you are not the strongest, and fastest.
You would be wrong, but a very good example of prejudice.
The best example that comes to mind is Stephen Hawking... He should be dead by most measures, but he is alive, and contributing to the betterment of all society.
But that doesn't mean that he should have kids. Sure he, like the three boys mentioned in the article, has done amazing things, but that doesn't mean that the genes for Lou Gehrig's Disease should be in the gene pool.
What do you know? Are you certain that blind people have nothing to contribute to society? People though the same thing about Blacks, Hispanics, etc., yet they've been proven wrong time and time again.
I never said anything even remotely similar to that. Many blind people have contributed substantially to society. But that doesn't mean that we want to breed more blind people.
Well, I suppose crap like this is why I marked you as a FOE in the first place...
That would have really hurt my feelings if it had come from someone whose opinion I respect.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen up, buddy.
You're not my "buddy."
People get damn tired of your whining about being modded down by "cowards" and "losers" as you like to call them. It's quite possibly the stupidest comment I've ever heard, to call someone a coward for modding you down, when moderation doesn't allow someone to then go post in the same discussion.
If you weren't such an idiot, you'd realize that I called the person a loser and an intellectual coward for choosing five separate posts by me on multiple subjects and modding them down. They didn't mod the posts down because of their content, they modded them down in a childish attempt to "punish" me.
You're an arrogant prick and an annoying troll. Slashdot would be a much better place without losers like you.
That would really hurt coming from someone I respected. Coming from you, it's just funny. You're just another pathetic whiner.
- FortKnox, posting anonymously to avoid the karma hit
Nice try. FortKnox has me marked as a friend.
For once, I can authoritatively say that "retraining" America is unrealistic at best and impossible for most unless you can have someone support you while you go back to school.
Agreed. Retraining was a realistic approach to move people from one semi-skilled blue-collar industry to another. The steelworker could be retrained to be a bricklayer in a fairly short time period. It's wholly different when someone is in a well-compensated professional position that requires a college degree and for whom experience is key to landing a good job. You can't spend 30-90 days and retrain a software engineer for a similarly compensated profession (veterinarian, lawyer, CPA, etc.).
If the politicians don't get a clue about this quickly, this country will be in for an ugly, decades-long, economic downward spiral.
I'm always curious about what the "quit whining" crowd work on since they don't seem very concerned.
I'd guess that most of them are working on their college degrees, tans, video gaming skills, or high-school homework -- while they live off mom and dad. They don't have a clue about reality and think that it's perfectly reasonable to tell the middle-aged head of a household with a spouse and two kids to just go back to college for four years and learn a new profession.
I am a software engineer specializing in embedded systems and computer security. Most recently I have been working for a defense contractor -- partially because work that requires clearances is not easily outsourced.
It's also true that many of them wouldn't have had their high-paying IT jobs in the first place had not huge numbers of secretaries (among others) lost their jobs to computers and word processors.
I am unconvinced by that assertion. There are plenty of secretaries, receptionists, and other support personnel where I work. A computer can't arrange for a caterer to bring in food for a meeting. A computer can't greet a guest at the door, hand them a badge, get them coffee, or escort them through the building. A computer can't take printed materials, covers, etc. and assemble them into binders. A computer can't drive to the local store to pick up supplies in an "emergency."
Even if we take your assertion at face value, the skill sets and salaries have to be considered. Suppose a secretary can't find work in his/her field. How much training will it take to prepare for a job that pays a similar amount? Not a four year degree. Not tens of thousands of dollars. She can probably go from being a secretary to doing data entry with no formal training.
Welcome to the global economy.. something that the U.S. has been pushing. Get busy creating value and not sitting on your ass complaining and you won't have anything to worry about.
The average Indian Software Engineer is paid about $6,000 (U.S.) per year. How much value do you think you can "create"? Enough to justify paying you what ten Indian software engineers earn? You right wing apologists and your bullshit-speak (e.g., "creating value") really sicken me. There are huge numbers of hard-working, intelligent Americans that have lost their jobs to outsourcing and all you want to do is blame the victims.
Admit it: there's not a damned thing that most people can do. What's the father of two supposed to do? Send his kids to Neverland Ranch and convince his wife to turn tricks to support him while he goes back to college for four years?
...maybe our schools will admit that score-norming and social promotion aren't really teaching, once their charges have to compete with the products of less 'enlightened' educational systems.
Tech jobs are not going to India because Indians are better educated. The jobs are going there because the average wage for an Indian software engineer is about $6,000 per year. That doesn't cover the yearly cost of leasing the office space and furniture for a software engineer in the U.S. This isn't about quality of work. It's about corporate greed and seven-figure CEO's laying off middle-class U.S. workers.
Thanks for your reply. A few points to consider:
For optical use (i.e. sticking your eye at the eyepiece) this will matter alot especially on
targets like the moon, planets, or double stars where contrast matters. It shouldn't be too bad on faint fuzzies (galaxies, nebulae etc) and that 18" aperature doesn't hurt.
That's somewhat contrary to my experience. A target like a nebula is much more subtle in contrast than, say, craters in shadow relief on the moon. Deep space objects are low-brightness and low-contrast compared to stars, planets, the moon, etc. Sadly, by going with such a large central obstruction, he loses a significant amount of the light that he's gathered, though.
I agree with your comments on the collimation of SCTs. I have three Celestrons and they simply never even need touch-ups.
CCD astrophotography has some folks that use lots of short (order of a couple seconds) exposures that are then derotated and and aligned and then digitally composited.
Although such imaging is sometimes done, it's normally done with a driven scope (although not necessarily equatorially mounted). Without a driven scope, the CCD-captured images must not only be derotated, but they also must be shifted. So the only real way to do it is with lots of images is to reposition the scope manually between sets of exposures. The truss tube design will tend to lessen wind-driven shaking, but you're right about the weight issue. Dobsonians need some kind of adjustable counterweight system (or sliding saddle) in order to handle heavy accessories -- something which his scope lacks.
I could have gone on further, but resisted the temptation to write a book. In short, I find no advantage to his design that's not bettered by the traditional folded Newtonian. In fact, the thought of craning my neck skywards to see the eyepiece makes me crince. I'd much rather have a traditional eyepiece mounted perpendicular to the tube.
If none of his claims were meant as tongue-in-cheek, then I suggest that he do some more studying of telescope optics, mounts, astrophotography, and amateur astronomy in general. That said, the construction of any telescope, especially one of that aperture, is a major undertaking and I wish him the best for his efforts.
The folded Newtonian is nothing new, though the design described here is a bit odd, to say the least. Here's an example of a similarly designed scope with much better construction.
There are more ways to fold telescope optical paths than most people imagine as shown here.
That said, the referenced article is filled with inaccuracies and I almost wonder if it's intended as some kind of practical joke. For example, it describes the "tracking accuracy" of Schmidt Cassegrains, Newtonians, and Folded Newtonians as "poor", "poor", and "very high" respectively. That's bunk. The tracking accuracy is determined by the mounting and drive. In the case of his scope, it's on an altazimuth (Dobsonian, to be specific) mount with no apparent drive at all, so it doesn't track anything! The author mispells Cassegrain repeatedly throughout the article, which I would hardly expect from someone knowledgeable about telescope optics. He describes the mount of a conventional Newtonian primary mirror as "fussy" while describing the mount of the primary in the folded Newtonian as "robust." There is no difference. The folding of the light path at the other end of the tube has nothing to do with how the primary is mounted. He describes the "weight" of Cassegrains and Newtonians as "heavy" and classifies the Folded Newtonian as "Very Light", yet there is no evidence that his folded Newtonian is any lighter than a conventional Newtonian -- and it's probably heavier due to the larger secondary, larger secondary mount, and the baffled tube that holds the focuser. He says that the "Field Width" of Schmidt Cassegrains, Newtonians, and his Folded Newtonian are "Narrow", "Wide", and "Very Wide" respectively. That's simply wrong and illogical -- as anyone with a reasonable knowledge of telescope optics can tell you. The tilt of the secondary mirror has no effect on real or apparent field width. In fact, because he is advocating a longer focal ratio (f8), he will have a narrower real field of view than a typical Dobsonian Newtonian (typically f4-f6) with the same eyepiece.
He makes absurd claims like "So the only real advantage of a small diagonal in a large telescope is a tiny improvement in contrast/resolution that can easily be recaptured with image processing." Anyone who knows anything about telescope construction can tell you that the secondary obstruction causes light loss and that's a serious concern. Also, image processing implies astrophotography. Astrophotography implies long exposure times and that necessitates an equatorially mounted telescope -- which his is not.
I don't find the article to be at all credible.
He's using a truss tube design similar to that used by many makers of large commercial Dobsonian telescopes. In addition to being very lightweight, it's easily broken-down for transport. The triangulation makes it extremely strong and rigid.
It may look spindly, but it's a good design.
Most hardware stores don't sell metric screws.
Maybe that's true of the hardwares stores in Outer Bumphuck, Alabama, but they sell metric screws at every major hardware store that I've been in lately. They may not have the exact style that you want for a PC case, but they sure as heck will have metric screws.
You know, you really is right. About your PS, of course.
Thanks. You're on my friends list, too, now. We may not agree, but I respect you.
I am irritated by any elaboration on eugenics, because I know many (many many) people especifically with Down's Syndrome that have beauty and bring beauty to their families lifes.
My wife has an uncle that has cerebral paralysis
and, altough have 50 years old, has the development of a 9 months old baby. And you know what? He teaches us things. We would be worse people, if it was not for his presence. This is important for us to learn.
All very valid and I, in no way, want you or anyone else to think that I am wishing someone now with us had never been born. Some of the most intellectually and emotionally gifted people in the world have genetic disorders, diseases, and handicaps.
I went to school with someone who lost his sight from a sports injury. He was well-adjusted and graduated with honors and we all learned much about courage from him. But just as I would not purposely try to destroy someone else's sight, neither would I knowingly pass on genes for blindness.
We may disagree, but what I am suggesting is not eugenics. Eugenics are attempts to improve the human race through controlled selective breeding. I'm not suggesting that anyone control breeding or select who may have kids. But I do think that parents should consider if it is fair to bring a child into the world with a potentially devastating genetic problem. And they should consider the effect that such genes could have on other parents many generations removed.
Now you are simply wasting my time. In my original post, I quoted the Wired article:Since you didn't read the article, didn't read my posting, and simply used this as an excuse to call me an "asshole", I guess I've just been trolled.
I attempt to illustrate my point byu putting you on the recieving end of your judgements and you turn it into an obscenity fest
You were the one who called me an "asshole", so it was you who started in with the gratuitous vulgarity and insults. (By the way, obscenity and vulgarity are not the same thing.)
Touche. My hat is off to you for a great one-liner -- even if it was at my expense.
There is Stephen Hawking and then there are the other millions of people with Huntington's Disease, most of whom lack his intelligence and many of whom spend their foreshortened lives in nursing homes. Before you go advocating the propagation of such horrible genetic defects through the gene pool, read about them. Here's how the Hundinton's Disease Society of America describes the condition:And that's the kind of thing that you are in favor of perpetuating through the gene pool?
P.S. I find it absurd that you would mark me as a "FOE" simply because we disagree. How intellectually hollow!
Deafness is a no brainer, right? What about diabetes? Heart disease? Depression? Allergies? Where is the rational point where the line is drawn? Or is it like porno; "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it?"
There is no black and white answer as you astutely point out. I would hope that parents would make ethical choices. If something is debillitating, then it should not be passed on. Mild allergies to seafood are not in that category. Allergies to peanuts that cause anaphylactic shock just from smelling peanuts probably is.
If I discovered that I had a gene for blindness, deafness, Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, or SCID, then I would not pass that gene on. If I wanted a child, I would adopt.
What reason would "normal" people have to develop their abilities, like their intelligence, beyond than what would be considered "normal"? They definitely wouldn't contribute much, or anything interesting at least.
Yeah, think about what would Einstein, Plato, and Kasparov achieved if they had been born sighted. Oh, wait... They were.
Most people are driven to better themselves. They read challenging books, participate in difficult activities, whether mental or physical, and learn new skills. I did not decide to stop learning just because I reached "normal." Did you?
You are ignoring the big picture. What happens to the poor couple that gives birth to a child with Down's Syndrome, blindness, deafness, and a non-functional immune system because they happened to get the unlucky set of recessive genes together?
Who are you to say they should not breed?
Because perpetuating genes for blindness results in needless suffering for generations to come and because being blind is such a devastating hurdle to overcome. Recessive genes for blindness can surface many generations later, causing a couple with no suspicion whatsoever to give birth to a blind child. That couple may not have the resources to raise a blind child.
That they are not as productive as your average sighted person?
No, they are not. The average blind person is shut out of countless opportunities that sighted persons have. But productivity is not the issue. I'm not some right-winger who thinks that everyone is on the Earth to drive up the GNP of their respective countries.
Have a little compassion. Think about families a few generations down the road that will have blind children because these people perpetuated these recessive genes. Think about how devastating that will be for them. Think about what your quality of life would be if you had been born blind.
Perhaps your parents should have stopped breeding rather than bring yet another asshole into this world.
You are living proof that it's possible for a woman to conceive and give birth to a living turd after she's been ass-f*cked.
And the day you will discover your adopted child is genetically "deficient", you will kill him or just sterilize him ?
I'd urge him/her to adopt when they grow up.
If he is living, then it is natural selection. Humans are not animals.
Did they even have biology class at your school?
We do not live by natural selection since 3 million years. We are differently structured then[sic] wolf packs.
That's basically correct (except for the timeframe). And that's why it's important for people to make intelligent and compassionate choices. If you and your wife have a genetic defect which causes blindness, then is it fair to pass on those genes, knowing that doing so could result in other sighted couples decades from now giving birth to blind children? Is that your idea of fairness?
Except for people like you.
You are an ass.
Where you do you think creativity, intelligence, and other good "abnormalities" come from?
An abnormality is not always a defect. Being abnormally strong, intelligent, athletic, etc. are not defective traits. Being blind, deaf, or with severe combined immunodeficiency ("bubble-boy" syndrome) are defects.
Any basis of judging the "goodness" of one person over another cannot be justified unless it is based on such a reduced quality of life that no life would be better than any life at all (potential examples: down syndrom, twins conjoined at the heart, etc). ANd I would hardly file "blindness" under that category.
So it's up to you to decide. I see.
But to have some ultimate idea that the general quality of our society can be improved by "sound scientific reasoning" about what is a good contribution and bad contribution to man-kind's general gene pool -- that is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard.
Do you think that someone born blind, by and large, has the same quality of life as someone born sighted? Do you think that someone born with Huntington's Disease has as good a quality of life as someone without it? Why pass on genetic traits which reduce quality of life and which may spring up generations later (when they are recessive genes)?
Okay, then let's disregard the Nazis, and say you are more on-terms with the form of eugenics that Sanger supported. Even planned-parenthood doesn't support those ideas of Sanger (their founder).
Nor do I support her ideas. You have to remember that Margaret Sanger believed in the fallacy of superior and inferior races. I do not.
No, you just don't understand what prejudice is.
If prejudging me based on your preconceived notions about Slashdot users isn't prejudice, what is it?
It's quite simple. If people believe they would be better off not having been born, it only takes a couple minutes for them to rectify that problem if they choose.
So you're advocating suicide for those with genetically inherited conditions? Wow, you are out there.
They contribute to society, the do not take away from it, so what possible reason can you have to justify condeming people?
I did not suggest "condemning" anyone. I said that the parents should have voluntarily stopped breeding when it became clear that they had a genetic flaw that leads to blindness.
You know that blind people have contributed to society, but don't think that they should ever be born.
No, that is not even close to what I said. People disfigured by fire have also contributed to society, but I don't support dousing people in gasoline and throwing matches at them. There is a difference between saying that we should not pass on genetic flaws once they become apparent and saying that people born with those flaws in the past should have been killed, urged to commit suicide, etc.
Nice try, troll-boy.
Keep your Nazi/White Supremicist crap off of Slashdot. Being non-"Aryan" has nothing to do with genetic defects you ignorant ass.
Wow... I thought we'd heard the end of this with the death of Hitler's Nazis, and Margaret Sanger.
You are (still) an idiot. You don't understand the difference between unscientific stupidity like Nazi Eugenics (based on "racial purity") and a desire to keep kids from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease and other genetic defects.
I would assume that you are a skinny geeky guy (possibly not, but likely since you are posting here) and in the world of hunting and gathering, you would be dead, because you are not the strongest, and fastest.
You would be wrong, but a very good example of prejudice.
The best example that comes to mind is Stephen Hawking... He should be dead by most measures, but he is alive, and contributing to the betterment of all society.
But that doesn't mean that he should have kids. Sure he, like the three boys mentioned in the article, has done amazing things, but that doesn't mean that the genes for Lou Gehrig's Disease should be in the gene pool.
What do you know? Are you certain that blind people have nothing to contribute to society? People though the same thing about Blacks, Hispanics, etc., yet they've been proven wrong time and time again.
I never said anything even remotely similar to that. Many blind people have contributed substantially to society. But that doesn't mean that we want to breed more blind people.
Well, I suppose crap like this is why I marked you as a FOE in the first place...
That would have really hurt my feelings if it had come from someone whose opinion I respect.