**rant mode** This reeks of politics a mile off. Under the current (proposed) free-trade agreement btw AUS and US, DMCA-style copyright laws will be extended to australia. This case seems like a very similar extending of US laws to cover australia and it willingly acceded by australian politicians for the all-hallowed free trade status. Just disgusting (can we have david hicks and Mamdouh Habib back please?).
All of these issues are tied in together and commonly seen as the extension of US laws and culture into australia. I for one am NOT happy with my new US overlords and I shall be writing to my MP about it!
In a twist I find somewhat ironic, the rip-off sit they mention at carorcar.com loads faster than the original site. Not only are they ripping off the content wholesale, they're doing it faster than the original guy can. With peoples patience for loading websites at an all-time low, it doesn't fair well...
As many other people have pointed out elsewhere, hubble has a 2m DIFFRACTION-LIMITED primary mirror. You work out the resolution. 1.22*lambda/diamter. This is still far better than the best astronomical sites (seeing at mauna kea and paranal gets down to about 0.5 arcsec at best). Even with adaptive optics, you're not gonna get there. So no, a ground-based telescope won't get you the same result.
Add to this, that hubble can get into the near UV, which is almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere.
You seem to be trying to describe and interferometer, which is a _completely_ different instrument and there is absolutely NO WAY an optical interferometer would work over such enormous baselines. 100m is really hard. thousands of kilometres? forget it!
Yeah, I tend to agree, but the absolutely *insane* cost of developing a space telescope makes it unlikely. We've had hubble, we've had FUSE, so another is unlikely to come along any time soon. So I guess the question from a UV-oriented person is "should we wait for the next one, or hold onto this one". Maintenance would be cheaper than development. And I'm also of the opinion that iun terms of scientific value, NASA's money would have been better spent on ground-based astronomy (think about the 10m class telescopes you could build for the hubble cost!)
But this is all academic. Hubble is dead. That last gyro won't hold on for much longer and then it's all gone. I'm just dirty because the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph which was supposed to go up on the next servicing mission would have been *extremely* useful in my pet field (high-velocity clouds).
And with regards the needs for a large IR telescope, the potential for descoping is critical here. It's happened once and it's possible again. Sadly, as a friend of mine is constantly reminding me, astronomy won't give her a hydrogen car in 5 years:-)
Yes, hubble and JWST are complementary, but it's not strictly true to say that hubble is the only UV tool around. FUSE - the Far UV Spectroscopic Explorer, has been up there and operating since 1999, run by johns hopkins (literally across the street from STScI).
It has a bit of life left in it, but covers the Far-UV, while STIS aboard hubble covers the near UV. So between FUSE, hubble and JWST, you get continuous (spectroscopic) coverage from the FarUV to the IR.
And it's hard to IR from the ground too, just like the UV.
The optical is boring and scientifically uninteresting? Sorry, but you're just plain wrong! Sure, maybe you can't see the most red-shifted "foo" galaxy, but with STIS (the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph) we can obtain optical/near UV spectra which contain an enormous number of ionised metal transitions. This gives us a heap of information about things like the formation of the milky way, the interiors of white dwarves and many other things. Also, the oversubscription rate of hubble gives a good indication on how valuable scientists think it is.
Of course, I'm completely biased in that part of my Phd work is based on STIS work:-) But then, what is scientifically interesting is a matter partially of opinion and partially of what's "in vogue". Ten years ago nobody cared much about stars or the solar system. Now the stellar crowd is close to finding the first stars formed in the milky way (population III stars) and the solar system kids are in big demand because they know how planets work (extra-solar planets anyone?).
As a cynical thought on JWST, don't underestimate the capacity for de-scoping the mission. It's happened already and is biting big projects (especially space-based ones) quite a bit in recent times. But maybe I'm just too pessismistic...
Yes - try it out. The debian addage is "the installer sucks - but you'll only ever do it once". It's true. The installer does suck if you want a nice friendly GUI to hold your hand. But one is in development! And you can get "anaconda" images that will give you the same thing on ia32 architectures.
The other thing you should note is that there is a GUI which does (almost) everything that apt-get does - called "synaptic". It rocks!
If you want to do simple "upgrade everything" or even "upgrade my distribution" it's as simple as "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" or "apt-get dist-upgrade". For harder things, I often use synaptic, because sometimes I want my hand held:-)
The problem with adaptive optics is the limited field of view. And not even AO approaches the diffraction-limited resolution of the HUBBLE. With multiple lasers in a horrendously complex MCAO system (which don't work yet!), there FOV is tiny. great if you want to image a double-star system but essentially useless for anything larger than a point-source:-(
although the previous story was from the detroit times...
The Yahoo story even references the detroit times story:
" In Michigan, a story about the devices in the Detroit News last week prompted state Sen. Tony Stamas (R) to promise that he would introduce legislation to make it illegal to possess such equipment."
Yup, sure. I think my point was sort of, "there needs to be a qualifier!". I'm not really sure of what the qualifier should be, but headlines saying "Unsolicited Email banned" etc, sort of scare me. That sort of thing can engender the wrong attitude in people who don't dig further.
As others here have noted, where the line is drawn is quite difficult. E.g. is a bulk email from my university about issue/announcement X considered legitimate or spam? What about an email from an ISP to all it's subscribers?
I don't know the answer, but I think public debates like this can only help the issue though...
Actually, it can be economical to move the data around on a system other than tape. Such things are required, for example, by large astrophyisical datasets. An example of one sort of system for moving around 10TB is
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0208/0208011.pdf
Of course, YMMV depending on your situation and it uses the tape principle (i.e. shipping rather than fibre)...
Heh, I remeber defining an inifitely-recursive function that kept spawning subshells in shell once. only _then_ did I discover that the main server didn't have any limits...
In some respects, yes, but different situations require different writing styles. What is acceptable in email or IRC, isn't appropriate for formal writing.
So I think that, even if you standardise and define it, it still only becomes informal english. As to whether that's appropriate....well...that's a decision for the schools I suppose...
http://www.theeyeinstitute.com.au/laser/laser.ht m
This is the site of an australian place which has been doing this kind of surgery for at least 8 or 9 years. I have found the doctors here to be very good, and I think they are some of the best here in OZ (at least their qualifications seem to indicate so).
They also have a half decent history of the operations etc, although IMHO they could go into a bit more detail.
I should think not much. You'd be amazed at what they can figure out about this kind of stuff just from a single picture. Astronomy is much more complicated than it first seems.
Slashdot Mirror
**rant mode**
This reeks of politics a mile off. Under the current (proposed) free-trade agreement btw AUS and US, DMCA-style copyright laws will be extended to australia. This case seems like a very similar extending of US laws to cover australia and it willingly acceded by australian politicians for the all-hallowed free trade status. Just disgusting (can we have david hicks and Mamdouh Habib back please?).
All of these issues are tied in together and commonly seen as the extension of US laws and culture into australia. I for one am NOT happy with my new US overlords and I shall be writing to my MP about it!
One very annoyed aussie...
**end rant**
In a twist I find somewhat ironic, the rip-off sit they mention at carorcar.com loads faster than the original site. Not only are they ripping off the content wholesale, they're doing it faster than the original guy can. With peoples patience for loading websites at an all-time low, it doesn't fair well...
Geez, nobody in australia worries about crocs. Steve "look at this beauty" irwin does that for us.
What you really need to protect yourself from are the drop-bears!
As many other people have pointed out elsewhere, hubble has a 2m DIFFRACTION-LIMITED primary mirror. You work out the resolution. 1.22*lambda/diamter. This is still far better than the best astronomical sites (seeing at mauna kea and paranal gets down to about 0.5 arcsec at best). Even with adaptive optics, you're not gonna get there. So no, a ground-based telescope won't get you the same result.
Add to this, that hubble can get into the near UV, which is almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere.
You seem to be trying to describe and interferometer, which is a _completely_ different instrument and there is absolutely NO WAY an optical interferometer would work over such enormous baselines. 100m is really hard. thousands of kilometres? forget it!
Yeah, I tend to agree, but the absolutely *insane* cost of developing a space telescope makes it unlikely. We've had hubble, we've had FUSE, so another is unlikely to come along any time soon. So I guess the question from a UV-oriented person is "should we wait for the next one, or hold onto this one". Maintenance would be cheaper than development. And I'm also of the opinion that iun terms of scientific value, NASA's money would have been better spent on ground-based astronomy (think about the 10m class telescopes you could build for the hubble cost!)
:-)
But this is all academic. Hubble is dead. That last gyro won't hold on for much longer and then it's all gone. I'm just dirty because the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph which was supposed to go up on the next servicing mission would have been *extremely* useful in my pet field (high-velocity clouds).
And with regards the needs for a large IR telescope, the potential for descoping is critical here. It's happened once and it's possible again. Sadly, as a friend of mine is constantly reminding me, astronomy won't give her a hydrogen car in 5 years
Yes, hubble and JWST are complementary, but it's not strictly true to say that hubble is the only UV tool around. FUSE - the Far UV Spectroscopic Explorer, has been up there and operating since 1999, run by johns hopkins (literally across the street from STScI).
It has a bit of life left in it, but covers the Far-UV, while STIS aboard hubble covers the near UV. So between FUSE, hubble and JWST, you get continuous (spectroscopic) coverage from the FarUV to the IR.
And it's hard to IR from the ground too, just like the UV.
The optical is boring and scientifically uninteresting? Sorry, but you're just plain wrong! Sure, maybe you can't see the most red-shifted "foo" galaxy, but with STIS (the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph) we can obtain optical/near UV spectra which contain an enormous number of ionised metal transitions. This gives us a heap of information about things like the formation of the milky way, the interiors of white dwarves and many other things. Also, the oversubscription rate of hubble gives a good indication on how valuable scientists think it is.
:-) But then, what is scientifically interesting is a matter partially of opinion and partially of what's "in vogue". Ten years ago nobody cared much about stars or the solar system. Now the stellar crowd is close to finding the first stars formed in the milky way (population III stars) and the solar system kids are in big demand because they know how planets work (extra-solar planets anyone?).
Of course, I'm completely biased in that part of my Phd work is based on STIS work
As a cynical thought on JWST, don't underestimate the capacity for de-scoping the mission. It's happened already and is biting big projects (especially space-based ones) quite a bit in recent times. But maybe I'm just too pessismistic...
$AUS0.02
Yes - try it out. The debian addage is "the installer sucks - but you'll only ever do it once". It's true. The installer does suck if you want a nice friendly GUI to hold your hand. But one is in development! And you can get "anaconda" images that will give you the same thing on ia32 architectures.
:-)
The other thing you should note is that there is a GUI which does (almost) everything that apt-get does - called "synaptic". It rocks!
If you want to do simple "upgrade everything" or even "upgrade my distribution" it's as simple as "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" or "apt-get dist-upgrade". For harder things, I often use synaptic, because sometimes I want my hand held
The problem with adaptive optics is the limited field of view. And not even AO approaches the diffraction-limited resolution of the HUBBLE. With multiple lasers in a horrendously complex MCAO system (which don't work yet!), there FOV is tiny. great if you want to image a double-star system but essentially useless for anything larger than a point-source :-(
*shrug* close enough, especially for someone who's on the other side of the world. oh well, should read a bit more carefully next time...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/27/003625 4&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=137&tid=159&tid= 186
although the previous story was from the detroit times...
The Yahoo story even references the detroit times story:
" In Michigan, a story about the devices in the Detroit News last week prompted state Sen. Tony Stamas (R) to promise that he would introduce legislation to make it illegal to possess such equipment."
Yup, sure. I think my point was sort of, "there needs to be a qualifier!". I'm not really sure of what the qualifier should be, but headlines saying "Unsolicited Email banned" etc, sort of scare me. That sort of thing can engender the wrong attitude in people who don't dig further.
As others here have noted, where the line is drawn is quite difficult. E.g. is a bulk email from my university about issue/announcement X considered legitimate or spam? What about an email from an ISP to all it's subscribers?
I don't know the answer, but I think public debates like this can only help the issue though...
Sort of nit-picking, I know, but shouldn't that be unsolicited "commercial" email. I get heaps of unsolicited email. From friends, colleagues etc...
:-)
I would hate not to get any email that wasn't a direct response to something I sent. What would I do for 2hours every morning when I got in?
Actually, it can be economical to move the data around on a system other than tape. Such things are required, for example, by large astrophyisical datasets. An example of one sort of system for moving around 10TB is
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0208/0208011.pdf
Of course, YMMV depending on your situation and it uses the tape principle (i.e. shipping rather than fibre)...
Heh, I remeber defining an inifitely-recursive function that kept spawning subshells in shell once. only _then_ did I discover that the main server didn't have any limits...
:)
15,000 zombie processes later....*CRASH*
oops
In some respects, yes, but different situations require different writing styles. What is acceptable in email or IRC, isn't appropriate for formal writing.
So I think that, even if you standardise and define it, it still only becomes informal english. As to whether that's appropriate....well...that's a decision for the schools I suppose...
A sad day. The underappreciated passes on, and will be sorely missed.
Kudos to the man, and his memory.
Try checking out:
t m
http://www.theeyeinstitute.com.au/laser/laser.h
This is the site of an australian place which has been doing this kind of surgery for at least 8 or 9 years. I have found the doctors here to be very good, and I think they are some of the best here in OZ (at least their qualifications seem to indicate so).
They also have a half decent history of the operations etc, although IMHO they could go into a bit more detail.
AO
I should think not much. You'd be amazed at what they can figure out about this kind of stuff just from a single picture. Astronomy is much more complicated than it first seems.
so what are grandma and grandpa going to do? What about all the people who don't have net access? What about people on holiday?
somehow I don't think you can get rid of them that easily.
kinda sounds like the head on the ground attitude of the Australian govts new censorship laws, doesn't it.
When will politicians realise that they really have no idea of what is actually going on???
C