Well, maybe that means not that it has some learning to do but that your 'greatest photograph' isn't as great as you thought on an absolute scale. After all, aren't you inherently biased?
Nobody has taken them up on the offer because they (16 Systems) are meaningless nobodies seeking to use the data recovery companies for their own PR ends.
The downloaders are probably unlikely to buy your book at retail anyway
If they're unlikely to buy it - then why are the likely to download it? (Or, IOW, you're just spouting bullshit to excuse piracy.)
but they do bring you more exposure
Few authors write books for exposure. Exposure doesn't put food on the table or a roof over their heads. (Or, IOW, you're just spouting bullshit to excuse piracy.)
Equaling Hubble but not costing 1.3 billion for a Shuttle launch to fix it is a big deal to me. It's not only that newer ground based telescopes are catching up with it. It's also about the insane cost to keep it running. That we can almost build two of those 30 meter telescopes for the cost of this one Shuttle launch makes me wonder why we bother.
When newer ground based scopes come even close to replacing Hubble, call me. They're getting closer but their still a long way off. *That* is why we bother - plus all the capabilities that Hubble has that a ground based scope can never have.
It's not like we're rolling in money, either. Hubble was great when it was launched, but it's just to expensive to run any more. And God help us if we need to launch a rescue mission due to the damage that the Shuttle has sustained. 2.6 Billion, then.
It's too expensive? 2.6 billion is like.000006% of the Federal budget for 2010. We could support a hundred Hubble's and barely notice it.
P.S. the 30 meter telescope will have technology in it to filter out virtually all of the distortion caused by the atmosphere. It's a very well thought out and high-tech design. For Infrared, though - the JWST is going to replace Hubble anyways in 2014.
P.S. "Virtually all" isn't the same as "all", and still doesn't make the atmosphere transparent to faint objects, or the UV and IR bands. P.P.S. who cares how well thought out it is? My mini van is a well thought out and high tech design, but it won't be replacing any dragsters anytime soon. P.P.P.S The JWST doesn't replace the Hubble - it operated in different bands.
Just in the last 24 hours we got a story on Slashdot about the new 30 meter telescope being built. Given the cost to fix Hubble and the non-zero danger that is present, why are we even bothering with it any more?
Because Hubble can do a number of important things that ground based scopes can't possibly do - like looking deep into the parts of the IR and UV bands that the atmosphere absorbs.
The new 30 meter telescope will have 100x the power of Hubble and allow us to do everything we ever wished
Well, no the new telescope doesn't have '100x the power' of Hubble. A telescopes power can't be measured on a single simple scale like a piece of gear in an RPG. The new telescope has 100x the light gathering area, but it still can't see the astronomical sources too faint for their light to penetrate the atmosphere. It'll have about 10x the resolving power of Hubble, but it's limited by atmospheric effects and the performance of it's adaptive optics.
Hubble's already outclassed by Keck as well - so ground-based telescopes already make it almost entirely redundant.
Except if you actually follow the links and read the comments - you find that at best the Keck merely equals the performance of Hubble, it doesn't even remotely outclass it.
The problem is that I am not sure that the shuttles have autolanding capability.
Yes, the Shuttle does have autolanding capability. This was added after the loss of Columbia to cover exactly the scenario you postulate.
In the even of an autolanding, the primary recovery site is White Sand NM, with Edwards AFB as backup. They'll use a landing trajectory that minimizes the number of people underneath the landing path.
An awful lot of effort to store (in the article in question) movies and TV shows he'll probably never watch again.
I've never understood the packrat mentality with movies and TV shows... I know people with literally thousands (tens of thousands?) of hours of TV shows and movies - what's the point?
I'm curious though, in a totally non-judgmental way, about the cost of the program in general; they expected the rovers to last, what, 90 days? So presumably someone budgeted so many resources here on Earth for people, etc., for that length of time. Since the rovers have been doing such a great job of defying expectations, what kind of effect does that have on the budget for the program; is it sufficiently small enough that it just gets lost in the wash?
Nothing gets lost in the wash in NASA's budget. Not only are there harsh internal reviews, NASA's line items are a popular target for Congressional review. Almost nothing NASA does is low profile, and politically (except for the really big programs) they're neutral - they have no strong constituency in favor, and they're a good place to hide a little pork from public view.
That being said, if a program runs long NASA can (and does) reprogram funds from elsewhere to keep it running and then adds it into next years budget request. Programs are paid for annually, not in a lump sum up front.
That's the wonder of having an open ended mission without any specific goals. Go slow and produce something every once-in-awhile and you stay employed.
Seriously, that's why NASA accomplished so many great things in the 60's - they had a goal and a deadline on the manned side, and a bunch of firsts to grab on the unmanned side. Since then, it's been mostly routine and ass covering as (like any bureaucracy) they revert to type.
There is more information and meaning in a 15 second voice mail than in any text. Is the caller angry? Sad? Frustrated? What did the environment he was calling from sound like?
I was about to say much the same thing... When my mom calls, I can tell instantly from the tone of her voice whether she's just calling to chat or whether I need to call back as soon as reasonably possible. (With a large extended family it seems there's almost always somebody ill or dying.) If it's my dad's voice, I know to drop whatever I'm doing and call now. Regardless of the hour.
But since they'll both call from the same telephone number, the voice-to-text convert will just give me voicemail from 123-456-8901 at 12:01 PM "hey, call us back when you get a chance" without that all important context.
If you are so impatient or have such a short attention span that you can't wait for the voicemail system to remind you of the trivial to memorize prompt to delete or save the message... you have other problems.
Speaking of Mom [does PST-to-EST conversion in head], she'll be back from Mass. Time to give her a call.
OK.. for starters, the arrow thing. You never said you saw the arrow being split, just that you saw a "split" arrow.
Well, I have seen one being split.
This was debunked strictly because they were unable to replicate the myth, and were unable to find any evidence that this had actually happened, anywhere.
They were unable to find evidence because their researchers are lazy. Here, in just a few minutes, you've heard from two people who've seen arrows split. Visit archery forums and you'll find hundreds more.
Which is typical of the Mythbusters - when their lazy and half ass methods fail to replicate a myth, they pronounced it busted and move on. And ignorant jackasses like yourself then propagate their claims.
"all of us agree that if we finished our thing, we'd earn more than what the corporation has offered us"
This statement alone tells me you lack critical business skills.
"If" we finished our thing? That should be "when" - because "if" is a hobby, "when" is a business. "We'd earn more"? Wishful thinking at best, a dangerous delusion at worst. The deserts are littered with the bones of startups that thought they'd be the next $Megacorp.
Your number just got drawn in the lottery. Get a good lawyer and tax adviser, and take the deal. Lightning doesn't strike twice.
I was about to say the same thing - this is actually a pretty well known incident. Had the poster taken the minuscule effort required to click on any of the links in the article, he'd have found the news stories supporting the article.
The idea that the only way for people to get news is to have a clump of newsprint pages thrown on your front porch (or in your driveway) every morning is ludicrous and has no relationship whatsoever to the society we live in.
That hasn't been the only way to get news for most of a century between radio and TV.
What is destroying the newspapers is competition. Before the age of the Internet, the typical newspaper was a monopoly and enjoyed monopoly profits. For example, the city of Boston had only 1 major paper: the "Boston Globe".
That's Boston - Boston is not the whole of the United States, let alone the world. Seattle/Tacoma has two papers, as does Washington and New York. Even my tiny town has a daily and a weekly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, maybe that means not that it has some learning to do but that your 'greatest photograph' isn't as great as you thought on an absolute scale. After all, aren't you inherently biased?
Nobody has taken them up on the offer because they (16 Systems) are meaningless nobodies seeking to use the data recovery companies for their own PR ends.
If they're unlikely to buy it - then why are the likely to download it? (Or, IOW, you're just spouting bullshit to excuse piracy.)
Few authors write books for exposure. Exposure doesn't put food on the table or a roof over their heads. (Or, IOW, you're just spouting bullshit to excuse piracy.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piracy
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/piracy-as-copyright-infringement.html
One of the best replies ever posted on Slashdot.
Nice try - but the term 'piracy' has been associated with 'media' for nearly two centuries.
When newer ground based scopes come even close to replacing Hubble, call me. They're getting closer but their still a long way off. *That* is why we bother - plus all the capabilities that Hubble has that a ground based scope can never have.
It's too expensive? 2.6 billion is like .000006% of the Federal budget for 2010. We could support a hundred Hubble's and barely notice it.
P.S. "Virtually all" isn't the same as "all", and still doesn't make the atmosphere transparent to faint objects, or the UV and IR bands.
P.P.S. who cares how well thought out it is? My mini van is a well thought out and high tech design, but it won't be replacing any dragsters anytime soon.
P.P.P.S The JWST doesn't replace the Hubble - it operated in different bands.
Because Hubble can do a number of important things that ground based scopes can't possibly do - like looking deep into the parts of the IR and UV bands that the atmosphere absorbs.
Well, no the new telescope doesn't have '100x the power' of Hubble. A telescopes power can't be measured on a single simple scale like a piece of gear in an RPG. The new telescope has 100x the light gathering area, but it still can't see the astronomical sources too faint for their light to penetrate the atmosphere. It'll have about 10x the resolving power of Hubble, but it's limited by atmospheric effects and the performance of it's adaptive optics.
Except if you actually follow the links and read the comments - you find that at best the Keck merely equals the performance of Hubble, it doesn't even remotely outclass it.
In addition, no earthbound scope can 'see' into the UV and IR bands as the atmosphere absorbs them.
Yes, the Shuttle does have autolanding capability. This was added after the loss of Columbia to cover exactly the scenario you postulate.
In the even of an autolanding, the primary recovery site is White Sand NM, with Edwards AFB as backup. They'll use a landing trajectory that minimizes the number of people underneath the landing path.
C'mon - they're bracing the goverment for funds to write a study. This is nothing but a complicated and very public way to apply for welfare.
An awful lot of effort to store (in the article in question) movies and TV shows he'll probably never watch again.
I've never understood the packrat mentality with movies and TV shows... I know people with literally thousands (tens of thousands?) of hours of TV shows and movies - what's the point?
They could - at a fairly steep cost in weight and complexity, two things a spacecraft designer avoids at almost any cost.
Nothing gets lost in the wash in NASA's budget. Not only are there harsh internal reviews, NASA's line items are a popular target for Congressional review. Almost nothing NASA does is low profile, and politically (except for the really big programs) they're neutral - they have no strong constituency in favor, and they're a good place to hide a little pork from public view.
That being said, if a program runs long NASA can (and does) reprogram funds from elsewhere to keep it running and then adds it into next years budget request. Programs are paid for annually, not in a lump sum up front.
That's the wonder of having an open ended mission without any specific goals. Go slow and produce something every once-in-awhile and you stay employed.
Seriously, that's why NASA accomplished so many great things in the 60's - they had a goal and a deadline on the manned side, and a bunch of firsts to grab on the unmanned side. Since then, it's been mostly routine and ass covering as (like any bureaucracy) they revert to type.
In which years dollars? And how are they defining 'income'?
Rooting around the web I find that Wrath of Khan alone grossed $78 million.
I was about to say much the same thing... When my mom calls, I can tell instantly from the tone of her voice whether she's just calling to chat or whether I need to call back as soon as reasonably possible. (With a large extended family it seems there's almost always somebody ill or dying.) If it's my dad's voice, I know to drop whatever I'm doing and call now. Regardless of the hour.
But since they'll both call from the same telephone number, the voice-to-text convert will just give me voicemail from 123-456-8901 at 12:01 PM "hey, call us back when you get a chance" without that all important context.
If you are so impatient or have such a short attention span that you can't wait for the voicemail system to remind you of the trivial to memorize prompt to delete or save the message... you have other problems.
Speaking of Mom [does PST-to-EST conversion in head], she'll be back from Mass. Time to give her a call.
Well, I have seen one being split.
They were unable to find evidence because their researchers are lazy. Here, in just a few minutes, you've heard from two people who've seen arrows split. Visit archery forums and you'll find hundreds more.
Which is typical of the Mythbusters - when their lazy and half ass methods fail to replicate a myth, they pronounced it busted and move on. And ignorant jackasses like yourself then propagate their claims.
"all of us agree that if we finished our thing, we'd earn more than what the corporation has offered us"
This statement alone tells me you lack critical business skills.
"If" we finished our thing? That should be "when" - because "if" is a hobby, "when" is a business. "We'd earn more"? Wishful thinking at best, a dangerous delusion at worst. The deserts are littered with the bones of startups that thought they'd be the next $Megacorp.
Your number just got drawn in the lottery. Get a good lawyer and tax adviser, and take the deal. Lightning doesn't strike twice.
I take it you've never actually studied any history of the Middle East?
I was about to say the same thing - this is actually a pretty well known incident. Had the poster taken the minuscule effort required to click on any of the links in the article, he'd have found the news stories supporting the article.
Sorry that doesn't really cut it - as he announces it as fact, rather than actually proving it.
I wish I could say my intention had been to prove (once again) the preference on Slashdot for 'facts' over facts.
That hasn't been the only way to get news for most of a century between radio and TV.
That's Boston - Boston is not the whole of the United States, let alone the world. Seattle/Tacoma has two papers, as does Washington and New York. Even my tiny town has a daily and a weekly.