Oh my god, you're right, these pictures must be absolutely useless. Quick, call NASA and tell them to turn off Hubble immediately before any more money is wasted!
All that we have, is an area to look at with our next next gen scope.
So what's different about the next next gen scope that means we won't just be getting a smaller area to look at with the next next next gen scope? Or has it got the "useful scientific information" module that they forgot to put in Hubble?
(my alternative reply to the parent is, "And you are...?")
astronomers have spotted seven galaxies that are all over 13 billion light years away
Far be it for me to question the Bad Astronomer, but is that right? From the article:
Since the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, this means we are seeing this galaxy as it was only about 380 million years after the Big Bang.
The observable universe is over 90 billion l.y. across (45 billion l.y. radius) because space has expanded since the Big Bang. So aren't these galaxies a lot more than 13.7 billion light years away?
Interestingly the original spacetelescope.org article (second link in the summary) makes absolutely no mention of distance, only of elapsed time.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Everyone's programming/filming with wider ratios in mind, so they're bound to "work better." if you were still using software no newer than 10 years old, you might feel differently.
It's close enough to 16:9 that watching movies isn't problematic.
Yeah, but then are movies made in 16:9 because it really is an intrinsically beautiful ratio, or is just because this perceived wisdom has been with us for so long it's become a convention, like films being shot at 24fps? Lots of people are getting grumpy about The Hobbit at 48fps, but that doesn't mean 24fps is intrinsically more dramatic or engaging. It's just what we're used to.
the 17:22 of standard paper.
There's no "standard paper." There are plenty of other ratios, and you certainly won't find that one in wide use on this side of the pond.
What's your point? There are plenty of images on Wikipedia whose relevance to their articles I can fully appreciate, but which I wouldn't want popping up on an image search at work.
that is harmonic for the same reason a sound is harmonic
If it was for the same reason as sound we'd all be most pleased by ratios of 2:1 or 3:2 (35mm photographs), wouldn't we? I don't see how the two sides of a rectangle, for example, can interfere with each other in the way sound waves can, producing a new waveform, which is what our ears pick up on - not a "pattern" per se.
To show the technology, Rogers rolled up his sleeve during his talk and, using a microscope and an overhead projector, revealed a circuit stuck on his arm. It looked like a clear tattoo, with a spaghetti-like mass of wires embedded in the surface.
Right, nice, but is it a circuit that actually does something?
Quite so. It's probably best to assume (lacking any other evidence) that the researchers did their best to rule this out, but this kind of article never goes into that much depth.
Also, is it nitpicky to point out that it's not hatching order per se, but incubation time which affects behaviour? True, hatching order is entirely dependent on incubation time (assuming they were all laid at the same time), but it's not like #1 from one brood will always be more exploratory than #2 from another brood.
I think the fact that SNP stands for Scottish National Party covers the second part (for the nitpickers, they are a nationalist party; their student wing is called the Federation of Student Nationalists).
I could be wrong, but I was always of the understanding that "nationalism" is not an "ism" of quite the same form as "racism" or "sexism."
That's not the same logic. The verb "to weigh" intrinsically means, in a way that the far more generic "measure" does not - if one is being picky for the sake of a slightly snarky Slashdot post - the measurement of weight. My point was to suggest that you cannot weigh an object's mass any more than you can time its length or smell its colour.
Sorry to be a pain, but could you possibly point more precisely to the parts of the article that justify the following:
He was anti equality legislation for women and non-white people
He was at one time a BNP supporter (British National Party - racist)
He wanted to ban women from the BBC*
?
*(putting female newsreaders into Room 101 [a light entertainment show on the BBC] is not the same thing)
How can it be that after 60+ years of language development, errors are handled by only two comparatively verbose and crude options, return values or exceptions? I've long felt we needed a third option.
Maybe - and admittedly this is just a guess from my fairly ignorant viewpoint - it's a very hard problem. How can it be that after 100+ years of industrial development, we're still heavily reliant on internal combustion engines to get us around? Why have we only got people as far as the moon in 60 years of space travel? Why, after x years, have we only achieved y?
Because that's the way it is. Is there some reason we should have the third option by now?
Slashdot Mirror
And the hubble allows this? I seriously doubt it.
Oh my god, you're right, these pictures must be absolutely useless. Quick, call NASA and tell them to turn off Hubble immediately before any more money is wasted!
All that we have, is an area to look at with our next next gen scope.
So what's different about the next next gen scope that means we won't just be getting a smaller area to look at with the next next next gen scope? Or has it got the "useful scientific information" module that they forgot to put in Hubble?
(my alternative reply to the parent is, "And you are...?")
astronomers have spotted seven galaxies that are all over 13 billion light years away
Far be it for me to question the Bad Astronomer, but is that right? From the article:
Since the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, this means we are seeing this galaxy as it was only about 380 million years after the Big Bang.
The observable universe is over 90 billion l.y. across (45 billion l.y. radius) because space has expanded since the Big Bang. So aren't these galaxies a lot more than 13.7 billion light years away?
Interestingly the original spacetelescope.org article (second link in the summary) makes absolutely no mention of distance, only of elapsed time.
Because it actually does work better.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Everyone's programming/filming with wider ratios in mind, so they're bound to "work better." if you were still using software no newer than 10 years old, you might feel differently.
It's close enough to 16:9 that watching movies isn't problematic.
Yeah, but then are movies made in 16:9 because it really is an intrinsically beautiful ratio, or is just because this perceived wisdom has been with us for so long it's become a convention, like films being shot at 24fps? Lots of people are getting grumpy about The Hobbit at 48fps, but that doesn't mean 24fps is intrinsically more dramatic or engaging. It's just what we're used to.
the 17:22 of standard paper.
There's no "standard paper." There are plenty of other ratios, and you certainly won't find that one in wide use on this side of the pond.
What's your point? There are plenty of images on Wikipedia whose relevance to their articles I can fully appreciate, but which I wouldn't want popping up on an image search at work.
2D picture elements
[2D picture] elements, not 2D [picture elements]
that is harmonic for the same reason a sound is harmonic
If it was for the same reason as sound we'd all be most pleased by ratios of 2:1 or 3:2 (35mm photographs), wouldn't we? I don't see how the two sides of a rectangle, for example, can interfere with each other in the way sound waves can, producing a new waveform, which is what our ears pick up on - not a "pattern" per se.
This is the best ratio, it is natural and beautiful.
Because it has some intrinsic property that makes it so, or because everyone just believes that to be true?
As a kid...they'd all be gone in XX years.
The real problem here is that kids are still being taught Roman numerals.
paradoxically, the land they're leaving behind is being ravaged by wildfires.
Is that really paradoxical? Was everyone expecting it to return to rainforest gracefully?
Two stages of the rocket have unsuccessfully avoided other countries
FTFY.
It's likely fair use
Well, that'd be nice, but I think you're living in a land of make-believe filled with pixies and fairies and frogs with magic hats.
Ethical issue, no.
Oh, hey, everyone, it's the guy who decides what's ethical or not! We have a few questions...
SQL may be SQL, but MSSQL is not MySQL is not PostgreSQL.
lurking for 10yrs, finally get chance to do FP?
Getting first post looks a lot cooler if you don't hedge your bets with a question mark. Or if you have something interesting to say.
To show the technology, Rogers rolled up his sleeve during his talk and, using a microscope and an overhead projector, revealed a circuit stuck on his arm. It looked like a clear tattoo, with a spaghetti-like mass of wires embedded in the surface.
Right, nice, but is it a circuit that actually does something?
Quite so. It's probably best to assume (lacking any other evidence) that the researchers did their best to rule this out, but this kind of article never goes into that much depth.
Also, is it nitpicky to point out that it's not hatching order per se, but incubation time which affects behaviour? True, hatching order is entirely dependent on incubation time (assuming they were all laid at the same time), but it's not like #1 from one brood will always be more exploratory than #2 from another brood.
I think the fact that SNP stands for Scottish National Party covers the second part (for the nitpickers, they are a nationalist party; their student wing is called the Federation of Student Nationalists).
I could be wrong, but I was always of the understanding that "nationalism" is not an "ism" of quite the same form as "racism" or "sexism."
That's not the same logic. The verb "to weigh" intrinsically means, in a way that the far more generic "measure" does not - if one is being picky for the sake of a slightly snarky Slashdot post - the measurement of weight. My point was to suggest that you cannot weigh an object's mass any more than you can time its length or smell its colour.
What do you do if a bird shits on your car?
Don't ask her out again.
I'm sure your grandmother was missed and mourned just as much as Patrick Moore by all the people she was an inspiration to.
He was anti equality legislation for women and non-white people
He was at one time a BNP supporter (British National Party - racist)
He wanted to ban women from the BBC*
?
*(putting female newsreaders into Room 101 [a light entertainment show on the BBC] is not the same thing)
In the process, they temporarily strand themselves on land for a few seconds.
Not really stranding themselves, then, eh?
Fish eating birds though... seems wrong, somehow...
Anyway I got disappointed when I found out he was a BNP supporter
Are you sure you haven't confused the BNP with UKIP?
They weighed its mass, not its weight.
They measured its mass.
How can it be that after 60+ years of language development, errors are handled by only two comparatively verbose and crude options, return values or exceptions? I've long felt we needed a third option.
Maybe - and admittedly this is just a guess from my fairly ignorant viewpoint - it's a very hard problem. How can it be that after 100+ years of industrial development, we're still heavily reliant on internal combustion engines to get us around? Why have we only got people as far as the moon in 60 years of space travel? Why, after x years, have we only achieved y?
Because that's the way it is. Is there some reason we should have the third option by now?