I love this. The thing about it is that it just makes it sound so simple that almost anyone can see that this isn't an effective method of copy-protection. This is exactly the type of writing that needs to be done to show that these so-called "flawless" schemes are often poorly designed.
Actually, it isn't. And you know how I know? I asked google.
Want to know the "speed of light squared"? Just ask google.
I'm tellin' you. I could spend hours playing with this. I'm not sure what this says about my personality, but you're all reading slashdot. . . so, people in glass houses...
Heh. Yes. I probably should have specified. The "Great Observatory" that is looking in the x-rays is the Chandra X-Ray Observatory (or something like that). It's named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who was called "Chandra."
Actually, it can get pretty damn hot with the Sun up there. If the satellite were out of the solar system, then it is true that cooling wouldn't be much of an issue. But, with the Sun right next door (astronomically speaking), it's very important that you have good cooling. In fact, this will only be a 2 year mission, due to the fact that the cooling system (liquid helium, I believe) will only last for that long. . .
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that SIRTF is a relatively small satellite (i.e. the type that would be likely to burn up in the atmosphere and not reach Earth). And remember, the first "Great Observatory" (Compton) did re-enter the atmosphere, without any big problems.
Yes. Absolutely. I thought that the person who subitted the story was very careful about what (s)he said; that the light from high-z galaxies that we want to observe is emitted in the optical/UV.
Well, I'll admit it's a bit of a stretch, but there ARE several different instruments on board. So, to some degree, it is a "facility".
On the other hand, these are the same people who named an X-Ray telescope after a theorist. But not even the theorist's full name; they used his nickname.
Basically, it depends what kind of games you like to play.
For some reason, it seems like this is an argument used exclusively by people who own Gamecubes. I'm not sure what that means, but I find it interesting. . .
Right. OK, then. My mistake. I got my information from a (somewhat frustrated) SOHO user, but you clearly know better than them. I stand corrected.
Making Trouble
on
SOHO Is Back
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The thing about this is that the SOHO engineers really made more trouble for themselves. When they first discovered the possible problem with the motor on the high gain antenna, it was in a relatively good position (i.e. they would have had to roll the telescope every three months, but never would have lost any data). Then, just to "test out" to see if they could get the motors to work, they moved the high gain antenna to its two extremes. Of course, the antenna got stuck near one of its extreme positions. Don't you just hate it when people can't leave well enough alone?:-)
Also, I find it entertaining that a standard way to try to fix something on a space-based instrument is to shake the entire instrument. Seems rather low-tech, but they did it both with SOHO along with other satelites at one point or another.
Yes. True. Gas and dust do absorb the light a bit (although, remember conservation of energy: the light has to be re-radiated). It is not, however, enough to significantly change the basic premise of the argument.
Also, if the universe is infinate (in space and time), then every galaxy is "within light range"; there is no cosmic particle horizon.
On your last point, I would only say that light is energy, so, if you believe the laws of physics, it has to be around in some form (and there's no reason to believe that it should change into something else).
But, if every line of sight did intersect a galaxy, then the average brightness of the sky would be MUCH BRIGHTER than even light-poluted skies. In an infinate universe, the 1/r^2 law would not be relevant, because there would be so many galaxies that we would see light from millions or billions of different galaxies at every point. AND, I should point out, even the Hubble Deep Field (the deepest optical image yet taken) does not show galaxies at every location.
One of the big problems with Big Bang Theory is that no one knows what "caused" the Big Bang. In addition, it is very unlikely that we will ever know, since the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is as far back in time as we can see. This may seem a little too convenient to some people, but it's not clear that we would even be able to explain it if we could observe something. . . our laws of physics probably didn't even apply then. So, to ask "where" the Big Bang occured doesn't really make sense, since the concept of "where" didn't exist at the moment of the Big Bang.
However, while Big Bang theory is not fact, it is currently a very good explanation of the universe as we observe it. The argument that the universe has to be finite is actually quite a simple one: the night sky is dark. In an infinate universe, every line of sight would interset a galaxy, so there would be light all over the sky and the night sky would be as bright as the average galaxy (i.e. pretty damn bright)
While it is possible to create an array of ways the universe can be conspiring against us, it appears that the Big Bang is a very good way to explain a lot of things about the universe. The fact that everything is expanding away from us in combination with the assumption that we are not at a "special" place in the universe suggests that all points are expanding away from all other points; i.e. the universe is expanding. In addition, the CMB is something that would be formed by the expansion (and cooling) of the universe under Big Bang theory. Is it possible that it formed in some other way? Sure. But it is a natural byproduct of the expansion of the universe, and is a much more elegant solution.
Yes. This is true. But remember. . . most of these super-massive stars that we think formed early on in the universe formed Type II Supernovae. This means that the heavy elements (i.e. Fe and everything heavier) would be locked up in the core of the remnant (i.e. black hole or neutron star). This means that these elements can't really go into forming new things like planets. It probably wasn't until Type Ia supernovae (i.e. main sequence star accreting onto a white dwarf until it explodes) started forming that there was a lot of heavy element enrichment. . . and the thought is that these took a while to form (since the white dwarfs in the binary system would have to form first).
I represent the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and I must insist that you immediately cease and desist your use of the phrase "Get on the bus!", which is patented by my client under US Patent #2032987. I will expect all references to such phrase to be removed from your site by 12:00 AM GMT on June 25, 2003.
All of this is true, but it's also beside the point. Even if the Earth wasn't tilted with respect to the plane of the solar system, we still wouldn't have to worry about the Galaxy. In fact, there is no reason to expect that the plane of the solar system would be aligned with with the plane of the Galaxy (and, in fact, is not).
And anyway, there is plenty of sky to look at with "just" 24 hours.
is expected to explode from a $100 million sideshow into a $2.5 billion behemoth by 2005, according to insurance industry projections.
So, do the companies buy insurance to guard against the chance that their predictions are wrong?
Hacking vs. "Legitimate" Computer Work
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 2, Redundant
Do you think that you would still be hacking today if you didn't get caught? Do you view it as a good thing or a bad thing that you got caught and had to spend time in jail?
The $5M spectrograph that was being built there (to go on the Gemini North Telescope in Hawaii) was destroyed as well. This is a major loss for the Astronomical community. Very sad.
Crap! I thought you were overstating it with your comment. I can't believe that the official Xbox site says, "If you want to have a bad narrowband experience, go buy a PS2."
I haven't had a chance to use my PS2 on a dial-up, but my experience on broadband has been excellent. I didn't even have to buy the adapter; I plugged in my USB Ethernet adapter to the USB port and it (to steal a phrase from Apple) "just worked." Now, I must admit, the idea of voice communication is excellent. Anyone know if there are any plans to bring this to PS2?
OK. I'll bite. What the hell is "speed bumps" refering to? Maybe it's just some subtlety of the English language (or geek language) that is alluding me, but I can't, for the life of me, figure it out. But, I'm willing to admit ignorance and have someone explain it to me. . .
Ah. Fair enough. Apple does have the "usability" factor going for it. Of course, this is only when it acutally works. The problem with Apple (desktops) is that it's rediculously hard to make stuff work if it's not what Apple originally designed for you to do. "It just works", but if it doesn't "just work", then it's impossible to make it work. There was a quote from someone (I don't remember who) who said, "Apple makes the simple things easy and the complex things impossible. Linux makes the simple things hard, and the complex things very hard, but possible." I think that sums things up nicely.
And, no, I don't want to hear about OS X. If I want Linux on a machine, I'll spend half as much and put it on a Intel/Athelon box.
Slashdot Mirror
I love this. The thing about it is that it just makes it sound so simple that almost anyone can see that this isn't an effective method of copy-protection. This is exactly the type of writing that needs to be done to show that these so-called "flawless" schemes are often poorly designed.
Indeed. And you've also got to respect the fact that it figures out both "speed of light squared" and "c^2"
Actually, it isn't. And you know how I know? I asked google.
Want to know the "speed of light squared"? Just ask google.
I'm tellin' you. I could spend hours playing with this. I'm not sure what this says about my personality, but you're all reading slashdot. . . so, people in glass houses...
Heh. Yes. I probably should have specified. The "Great Observatory" that is looking in the x-rays is the Chandra X-Ray Observatory (or something like that). It's named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who was called "Chandra."
Actually, it can get pretty damn hot with the Sun up there. If the satellite were out of the solar system, then it is true that cooling wouldn't be much of an issue. But, with the Sun right next door (astronomically speaking), it's very important that you have good cooling. In fact, this will only be a 2 year mission, due to the fact that the cooling system (liquid helium, I believe) will only last for that long. . .
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that SIRTF is a relatively small satellite (i.e. the type that would be likely to burn up in the atmosphere and not reach Earth). And remember, the first "Great Observatory" (Compton) did re-enter the atmosphere, without any big problems.
Yes. Absolutely. I thought that the person who subitted the story was very careful about what (s)he said; that the light from high-z galaxies that we want to observe is emitted in the optical/UV.
Well, I'll admit it's a bit of a stretch, but there ARE several different instruments on board. So, to some degree, it is a "facility".
On the other hand, these are the same people who named an X-Ray telescope after a theorist. But not even the theorist's full name; they used his nickname.
Basically, it depends what kind of games you like to play.
For some reason, it seems like this is an argument used exclusively by people who own Gamecubes. I'm not sure what that means, but I find it interesting. . .
Right. OK, then. My mistake. I got my information from a (somewhat frustrated) SOHO user, but you clearly know better than them. I stand corrected.
The thing about this is that the SOHO engineers really made more trouble for themselves. When they first discovered the possible problem with the motor on the high gain antenna, it was in a relatively good position (i.e. they would have had to roll the telescope every three months, but never would have lost any data). Then, just to "test out" to see if they could get the motors to work, they moved the high gain antenna to its two extremes. Of course, the antenna got stuck near one of its extreme positions. Don't you just hate it when people can't leave well enough alone? :-)
Also, I find it entertaining that a standard way to try to fix something on a space-based instrument is to shake the entire instrument. Seems rather low-tech, but they did it both with SOHO along with other satelites at one point or another.
Yes. True. Gas and dust do absorb the light a bit (although, remember conservation of energy: the light has to be re-radiated). It is not, however, enough to significantly change the basic premise of the argument.
Also, if the universe is infinate (in space and time), then every galaxy is "within light range"; there is no cosmic particle horizon.
On your last point, I would only say that light is energy, so, if you believe the laws of physics, it has to be around in some form (and there's no reason to believe that it should change into something else).
But, if every line of sight did intersect a galaxy, then the average brightness of the sky would be MUCH BRIGHTER than even light-poluted skies. In an infinate universe, the 1/r^2 law would not be relevant, because there would be so many galaxies that we would see light from millions or billions of different galaxies at every point. AND, I should point out, even the Hubble Deep Field (the deepest optical image yet taken) does not show galaxies at every location.
One of the big problems with Big Bang Theory is that no one knows what "caused" the Big Bang. In addition, it is very unlikely that we will ever know, since the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is as far back in time as we can see. This may seem a little too convenient to some people, but it's not clear that we would even be able to explain it if we could observe something. . . our laws of physics probably didn't even apply then. So, to ask "where" the Big Bang occured doesn't really make sense, since the concept of "where" didn't exist at the moment of the Big Bang.
However, while Big Bang theory is not fact, it is currently a very good explanation of the universe as we observe it. The argument that the universe has to be finite is actually quite a simple one: the night sky is dark. In an infinate universe, every line of sight would interset a galaxy, so there would be light all over the sky and the night sky would be as bright as the average galaxy (i.e. pretty damn bright)
While it is possible to create an array of ways the universe can be conspiring against us, it appears that the Big Bang is a very good way to explain a lot of things about the universe. The fact that everything is expanding away from us in combination with the assumption that we are not at a "special" place in the universe suggests that all points are expanding away from all other points; i.e. the universe is expanding. In addition, the CMB is something that would be formed by the expansion (and cooling) of the universe under Big Bang theory. Is it possible that it formed in some other way? Sure. But it is a natural byproduct of the expansion of the universe, and is a much more elegant solution.
Yes. This is true. But remember. . . most of these super-massive stars that we think formed early on in the universe formed Type II Supernovae. This means that the heavy elements (i.e. Fe and everything heavier) would be locked up in the core of the remnant (i.e. black hole or neutron star). This means that these elements can't really go into forming new things like planets. It probably wasn't until Type Ia supernovae (i.e. main sequence star accreting onto a white dwarf until it explodes) started forming that there was a lot of heavy element enrichment. . . and the thought is that these took a while to form (since the white dwarfs in the binary system would have to form first).
Dear Mr. Taco,
I represent the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and I must insist that you immediately cease and desist your use of the phrase "Get on the bus!", which is patented by my client under US Patent #2032987. I will expect all references to such phrase to be removed from your site by 12:00 AM GMT on June 25, 2003.
Thank you for your cooperation.
All of this is true, but it's also beside the point. Even if the Earth wasn't tilted with respect to the plane of the solar system, we still wouldn't have to worry about the Galaxy. In fact, there is no reason to expect that the plane of the solar system would be aligned with with the plane of the Galaxy (and, in fact, is not).
And anyway, there is plenty of sky to look at with "just" 24 hours.
is expected to explode from a $100 million sideshow into a $2.5 billion behemoth by 2005, according to insurance industry projections.
So, do the companies buy insurance to guard against the chance that their predictions are wrong?
Do you think that you would still be hacking today if you didn't get caught? Do you view it as a good thing or a bad thing that you got caught and had to spend time in jail?
The $5M spectrograph that was being built there (to go on the Gemini North Telescope in Hawaii) was destroyed as well. This is a major loss for the Astronomical community. Very sad.
Crap! I thought you were overstating it with your comment. I can't believe that the official Xbox site says, "If you want to have a bad narrowband experience, go buy a PS2."
I haven't had a chance to use my PS2 on a dial-up, but my experience on broadband has been excellent. I didn't even have to buy the adapter; I plugged in my USB Ethernet adapter to the USB port and it (to steal a phrase from Apple) "just worked." Now, I must admit, the idea of voice communication is excellent. Anyone know if there are any plans to bring this to PS2?
Is anyone else entertained by the fact that this is made available by "Max Power Aerospace, Inc."?
Ah. Excellent. It makes sense now. Thanks.
OK. I'll bite. What the hell is "speed bumps" refering to? Maybe it's just some subtlety of the English language (or geek language) that is alluding me, but I can't, for the life of me, figure it out. But, I'm willing to admit ignorance and have someone explain it to me. . .
Ah. Fair enough. Apple does have the "usability" factor going for it. Of course, this is only when it acutally works. The problem with Apple (desktops) is that it's rediculously hard to make stuff work if it's not what Apple originally designed for you to do. "It just works", but if it doesn't "just work", then it's impossible to make it work. There was a quote from someone (I don't remember who) who said, "Apple makes the simple things easy and the complex things impossible. Linux makes the simple things hard, and the complex things very hard, but possible." I think that sums things up nicely.
And, no, I don't want to hear about OS X. If I want Linux on a machine, I'll spend half as much and put it on a Intel/Athelon box.