Could this possibly be a mix of weightlessness affecting the eye muscles, and a lack of distance focal points to focus the eye on during the stay in space?
As to the latter, the answer is almost certainly no. Otherwise, it would have shown up on submarine crewmen (especially SSBN crew) decades ago. Anyhow, if you read TFA, the problem is believed to be related to swelling in/adjacent to the optic nerve, not muscular.
IMO the goal of our space programs isn't just to put humans into space. It also serves to dump piles of money into US science an tech development.
Most of which science and technology is related to putting man into space - very, very little of it returns to the economy in the form of useful technologies or products for the man in the street. (Decades of NASA propaganda to the contrary.)
What you say is true - and utterly irrelevant. This is a poker game, not a casino table game like Blackjack or Pai Gow. The rules of poker are designed to redistribute money among the players. The rules of casino table games are designed to siphon a large cut off to the casino and redistribute the balance among the players.
Google has never been able to fight off entrenched competition? Have you ever heard of Android?
Yes, I've heard of Android. So what? It's one of the few successes they've had. If you go back and actually read what I wrote, you'll note that I've already stated that as a given.
Microsoft also shut down their blogging product, because Google dominated that market. Google isn't first in every market, but that doesn't mean that Google fails in every market.
Google only dominated that market because they bought the dominant blogging platform. Ever since, they've been losing ground to Typepad, Wordpress, and other competing services and programs. Because of their typical benign neglect, they've taken that supremacy and driven it into the ground.
As to the latter, had I claimed Google was failing, you'd have a point. Instead, your fanboy pride has been wounded and so you've reverted to blowing smoke.
Web mail numbers are always skeptical.
Of course you're skeptical. Anything less would shake your fanboy faith.
Google makes it harder to create throwaway and spam accounts, and thusly has fewer Gmail accounts.
Of course, it if weren't for those foul spammers and users of throwaway accounts - Google Would Rule. On the other hand, the masses of Hotmail, Yahoo, Comcast, and other not Google addresses I see as compared to the trickle of Google addresses are meaningless.
Meanwhile, in a limited beta, Google+ became the fasting growing social networking platform in history.
It's pretty easy for any Google service to become the fastest growing anything 'in history', because all Google has to do is induce existing Google users to sign up. Their historical problem has been to grow beyond that initial surge.
Facebook has been around for over 7 years. It took 4 years to reach 100 million members. Google+ got 14 million in a few weeks in a closed beta.
It may have taken Facebook four years to reach 100 million users, but it currently has 750 million users. 14 million is a bit of evaporation off of a drop in the bottom of the bucket. (And likely most of those 14 million were existing users of Google services, not new users.)
I wouldn't be shocked to see them reach 100 million in a year.
I would be. Despite Gmail being around for years now - it still remains a distant third among web mail systems. Despite Google Groups being around for years, it too remains in second place. Picasa, the horrid piece of crippled crap that it is, remains a distant second... Buzz is practically unknown Etc... etc...
Practically everywhere Google faces entrenched competition, it comes off badly. If it doesn't have to do with search and/or data aggregation, their services are rarely better enough than their competitors to get people to switch. (That Google tends to roll out a service and then benignly neglect it for years at a stretch doesn't help much.) On top of that, with G+ they are at or near the point where they're going to have to deal with a reverse network effect - I.E. once the novelty wears off, they still don't have the numbers to assure critical mass. And when it comes to social networking, those numbers (of grandmas, and old classmates, and old shipmates) are everything.
81 days was pretty long in those days in a space station, when the US was only in space for a few days to/from the moon in a capsule.
Nope. Skylab accumulated 171 days by 1973, while it took until 1977 for Almaz/Salyut to accumulate 81 days. In fact, Skylab 3 (1973) accumulated 84 days all by itself.
On top of that, the Soviets wouldn't bust the Skylab total time accumulated record until 1977, or the Skylab single mission record until 1977/78. And it took them 11 manned flights or flight attempts (I.E launched, but failed to dock with the station or otherwise had to abort the mission) to bust those records - vice three for Skylab. (The record for station launches is similarly dismal.)
The Soviets actually got a manned space satellite to work.
That's known as "making lemonade out of lemons". The Soviets pursued that path because their automatic systems were not up to the task. The US did not, not only because our systems were up to the task, but because the vibrations caused by men on/adjacent to the camera reduced it's resolution
Which is probably where they learned so much about extended space missions.
Not really. The Almaz stations were only visited three times - for a total stay length of only 81 days. (Two missions of two odd weeks, one of just under two months.) The long duration stays were on the Salyut stations. The really long duration stays were on MIR.
"But," said the professor with a wink, "the sizing of Hubble was based in part on what was already known to be possible."
Hubble's size, weight, and CG were based on what was possible within the Shuttle's cargo bay. The size, weight, and CG capabilities of the Shuttle's cargo bay were based on current and reasonable future spy birds.
QED
That being said, the optical path (and weight/CG) are probably going to differ somewhat between Hubble and a notional spy bird. Hubble looks straight out axially, while spy birds are generally believed to have a mirror that allows an axial camera to look out the side of bird. There's also some debate over whether or not the supposed mirror is fixed or movable. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
At the same time, Im not sure I would call "having my feelings hurt" something that makes me a "victim". Good grief, how did you ever make it through high school?
You're seriously comparing high school nonsense to grief after someone died? Now I know why you're so intent on blaming the victim - you have utterly no clue to the emotions they're experiencing. It's much more than "getting their feelings hurt".
Also, they need to learn a bit more about the internet. I didn't RTFA, but it appears that the memorial page had an open comment section and they expected it to not get trolled. It doesn't matter who is in the right here, but that's an unreasonable expectation. If they don't want bad comments, then moderate them before letting them appear on the page.
Translation "I blame the victim".
Car analogy: pedestrians have the right of way. That doesn't mean you should try to walk across a 6 lane road with heavy traffic.
Bad analogy (pedestrians don't always have the right of way). Better analogy: It doesn't matter whether your door is locked or unlocked, it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.
Zooniverse seems much more distributed human analysis, kind of a Mechanical Turk. Why not BOINC, which already exists as a distributed computing source? Being on BOINC gives them access to tens of thousands of computers.
Hubble gave us a lot of very nice pictures, but let's be realistic: in terms of science per dollar we've got much more from combination of WMAP and SDSS I and II.
Since neither the WMAP or the SDSS can replace the science performed by Hubble - you're comparing apples to sea anemones.
But let's be fair about science: pretty pictures that excite public are useful for PR, but for real science you need better than that.
You're operating under the mistaken notion that since what you see are 'pretty pictures', that's the whole of Hubble's output. Anyone who is actually cognizant of the science performed by Hubble knows that most of the instruments are spectrometers of one sort or another - not cameras.
The acquisition makes sense, in that they obviously want ratings of restaurants (and other places) on Maps, and they've already changed tactics there once or twice. This'll pretty much take care of that problem.
Yes, and no. Zagat's ratings are 'user-driven', and while not subject to the kind of spam online rating are, they have problems of their own. Restaurants off the trend line tend to not garner as high as rating as those that are on it. Restaurants tend to hang onto their ratings for longer than might be justified because they're local favorites and remain so even if quality slides. Etc... etc...
This is exactly right. Try teaching a 55+ yr old accountant or bookkeeper when he/she should use black&white vs color, 150 vs 300 vs 600 dpi and the difference between JPEG, TIFF and PDF. Then teach them how to enter their email address on the network scanner printer using only the number keys then how to forward that email without sending it to 500 other people accidentally and without blowing up email quotas
All of which is pretty easy to do. Accountants (actual accountants, not bookkeepers or clerks with a fancy title) are trained professionals who daily must deal with issues much more complex and difficult than the trivial problems you discuss. (Every study tax law?) Not to mention that accountants come in all ages - from their 20's on up. But even those bookkeepers and clerks aren't stupid, and when taught by someone without your attitude and bias can pick it up pretty quick.
Why they don't do so is abundantly explained by many other posters in the thread, so I'll summarize; a) the scanning and emailing process is fragile while a fax just works, and b) a fax has legal validity and a scanned document currently doesn't.
The truth is even many fax machines have different photo/text settings, contrast settings, quality settings but no one other than us IT types ever considers those.
Definition of a celebrity: someone who is famous for being famous.
Um, no. Not even close.
A celebrity is someone who is famous - period. From Wikipedia: "A celebrity, also referred to as a celeb in popular culture, is a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized". From Dictionary.com. "a famous or well-known person. fame; renown. distinction, note, eminence, stardom".
Or, the 'floating houses' of TFA aren't the sole usage of that term. Which, unsurprisingly, is what I find when I actually take the time to look at the actual results rather than just the numbers.
When I search on 'floating houses', the first ten pages of images are almost totally either conventional houseboats, or the newer style which are (more or less) actually conventional houses built on barges. The same is true of the links - some are the houses that are the topic of TFA, but overwhelmingly they are on either conventional houseboats conventional houses built on barges.
Slashdot Mirror
As to the latter, the answer is almost certainly no. Otherwise, it would have shown up on submarine crewmen (especially SSBN crew) decades ago. Anyhow, if you read TFA, the problem is believed to be related to swelling in/adjacent to the optic nerve, not muscular.
Most of which science and technology is related to putting man into space - very, very little of it returns to the economy in the form of useful technologies or products for the man in the street. (Decades of NASA propaganda to the contrary.)
That presumes the Russians have the data... In general, they weren't really diligent about biomedical protocols and record keeping.
True, but a second TV on the same meter will.
What you say is true - and utterly irrelevant. This is a poker game, not a casino table game like Blackjack or Pai Gow. The rules of poker are designed to redistribute money among the players. The rules of casino table games are designed to siphon a large cut off to the casino and redistribute the balance among the players.
Yes, I've heard of Android. So what? It's one of the few successes they've had. If you go back and actually read what I wrote, you'll note that I've already stated that as a given.
Google only dominated that market because they bought the dominant blogging platform. Ever since, they've been losing ground to Typepad, Wordpress, and other competing services and programs. Because of their typical benign neglect, they've taken that supremacy and driven it into the ground.
As to the latter, had I claimed Google was failing, you'd have a point. Instead, your fanboy pride has been wounded and so you've reverted to blowing smoke.
Of course you're skeptical. Anything less would shake your fanboy faith.
Of course, it if weren't for those foul spammers and users of throwaway accounts - Google Would Rule. On the other hand, the masses of Hotmail, Yahoo, Comcast, and other not Google addresses I see as compared to the trickle of Google addresses are meaningless.
It's pretty easy for any Google service to become the fastest growing anything 'in history', because all Google has to do is induce existing Google users to sign up. Their historical problem has been to grow beyond that initial surge.
It may have taken Facebook four years to reach 100 million users, but it currently has 750 million users. 14 million is a bit of evaporation off of a drop in the bottom of the bucket. (And likely most of those 14 million were existing users of Google services, not new users.)
I would be. Despite Gmail being around for years now - it still remains a distant third among web mail systems. Despite Google Groups being around for years, it too remains in second place. Picasa, the horrid piece of crippled crap that it is, remains a distant second... Buzz is practically unknown Etc... etc...
Practically everywhere Google faces entrenched competition, it comes off badly. If it doesn't have to do with search and/or data aggregation, their services are rarely better enough than their competitors to get people to switch. (That Google tends to roll out a service and then benignly neglect it for years at a stretch doesn't help much.) On top of that, with G+ they are at or near the point where they're going to have to deal with a reverse network effect - I.E. once the novelty wears off, they still don't have the numbers to assure critical mass. And when it comes to social networking, those numbers (of grandmas, and old classmates, and old shipmates) are everything.
Nope. Skylab accumulated 171 days by 1973, while it took until 1977 for Almaz/Salyut to accumulate 81 days. In fact, Skylab 3 (1973) accumulated 84 days all by itself.
On top of that, the Soviets wouldn't bust the Skylab total time accumulated record until 1977, or the Skylab single mission record until 1977/78. And it took them 11 manned flights or flight attempts (I.E launched, but failed to dock with the station or otherwise had to abort the mission) to bust those records - vice three for Skylab. (The record for station launches is similarly dismal.)
No, it's the stereotype of "every single teenager that exists, has existed and will exist".
That's known as "making lemonade out of lemons". The Soviets pursued that path because their automatic systems were not up to the task. The US did not, not only because our systems were up to the task, but because the vibrations caused by men on/adjacent to the camera reduced it's resolution
Not really. The Almaz stations were only visited three times - for a total stay length of only 81 days. (Two missions of two odd weeks, one of just under two months.) The long duration stays were on the Salyut stations. The really long duration stays were on MIR.
Hubble's size, weight, and CG were based on what was possible within the Shuttle's cargo bay. The size, weight, and CG capabilities of the Shuttle's cargo bay were based on current and reasonable future spy birds.
QED
That being said, the optical path (and weight/CG) are probably going to differ somewhat between Hubble and a notional spy bird. Hubble looks straight out axially, while spy birds are generally believed to have a mirror that allows an axial camera to look out the side of bird. There's also some debate over whether or not the supposed mirror is fixed or movable. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
Some people will, most people won't. This isn't Facebook's fault.
You're seriously comparing high school nonsense to grief after someone died? Now I know why you're so intent on blaming the victim - you have utterly no clue to the emotions they're experiencing. It's much more than "getting their feelings hurt".
Translation "I blame the victim".
Bad analogy (pedestrians don't always have the right of way). Better analogy: It doesn't matter whether your door is locked or unlocked, it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.
Zooniverse seems much more distributed human analysis, kind of a Mechanical Turk. Why not BOINC, which already exists as a distributed computing source? Being on BOINC gives them access to tens of thousands of computers.
Nope. There was a reason why the monolith was initially called the Tycho MAGNETIC Anomaly.
Since neither the WMAP or the SDSS can replace the science performed by Hubble - you're comparing apples to sea anemones.
You're operating under the mistaken notion that since what you see are 'pretty pictures', that's the whole of Hubble's output. Anyone who is actually cognizant of the science performed by Hubble knows that most of the instruments are spectrometers of one sort or another - not cameras.
Since numbers are the topic... how exactly is this a problem?
I ask since you don't actually expound on the issue, but rather your segue in a karma whoring rant about the market.
You might actually get off your high horse and actually look at a picture of the sphere. Less than half the surface area is ports for the lasers.
Because homeopathic remedies are sold as 'diet supplements', which are regulated as foodstuffs rather than as drugs.
Yes, and no. Zagat's ratings are 'user-driven', and while not subject to the kind of spam online rating are, they have problems of their own. Restaurants off the trend line tend to not garner as high as rating as those that are on it. Restaurants tend to hang onto their ratings for longer than might be justified because they're local favorites and remain so even if quality slides. Etc... etc...
All of which is pretty easy to do. Accountants (actual accountants, not bookkeepers or clerks with a fancy title) are trained professionals who daily must deal with issues much more complex and difficult than the trivial problems you discuss. (Every study tax law?) Not to mention that accountants come in all ages - from their 20's on up. But even those bookkeepers and clerks aren't stupid, and when taught by someone without your attitude and bias can pick it up pretty quick.
Why they don't do so is abundantly explained by many other posters in the thread, so I'll summarize; a) the scanning and emailing process is fragile while a fax just works, and b) a fax has legal validity and a scanned document currently doesn't.
As above - biased, ignorant, and wrong.
Um, no. Not even close.
A celebrity is someone who is famous - period. From Wikipedia: "A celebrity, also referred to as a celeb in popular culture, is a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized". From Dictionary.com. "a famous or well-known person. fame; renown. distinction, note, eminence, stardom".
Regulars accept that service is not identical from night to night. You're not a regular, you're a jackass with a self-entitlement complex.
Or, the 'floating houses' of TFA aren't the sole usage of that term. Which, unsurprisingly, is what I find when I actually take the time to look at the actual results rather than just the numbers.
When I search on 'floating houses', the first ten pages of images are almost totally either conventional houseboats, or the newer style which are (more or less) actually conventional houses built on barges. The same is true of the links - some are the houses that are the topic of TFA, but overwhelmingly they are on either conventional houseboats conventional houses built on barges.