These specialized applications are generally installed only with a single Windows OS release. The OS is not patched or updated unless by the vendor. Applications other than what the vendor supplied are not installed.
This may well include such things as Microsoft updates/service packs as well as anti-virus software.
They probably *could* do the same thing under Linux, but I'd rather that they not do it.
Effectivly what you have is an embedded application server. You can do this quite easily with Linux, possibly even easier that with Windows because of better remote admin features and the ability to run on a wider variety of hardware. e.g. try having a Windows machine which has no video card with a serial port as "console"...
Sure for many things, Linux doesn't have support for the high-end, High availability hardware (though this is on its way).
Nor does NT/2000/XP, it's more likely that Linux can support this hardware than Windows. Simply because Linux has been ported to a wide range of architectures, Windows is effectivly stuck with one.
What you say makes no sense. How is your network Win2k? Your network is composed of switches and routers that transport IP among other things.
It appears to be fairly common terminology, especially amongst, the technically illiterate, to describe networks based around what OS some server or other on it is running. These kind of people tend to get confused with by an answer of "ethernet" let alone specific protocols or types of cable.
Maybe if the asteroid was shaped like, say, the Oregon Trail. Or the Great Wall. Or the Luxor. You can see all those from orbit.
Only if it were of similar size. This is something like 100 metres, which isn't very big at all. Even at closest approach this object is something like 7 times the moon's orbit away. You'd have trouble making out the great wall from that distance...
Now, the article says that the asteroid doesn't come closer than 3.6 million miles.... However, it'd be interesting to see any type of effects it may have environmentally, however minimal. Perhaps it may alter tides (albeit slightly) Also, be interesting to see if any significant events occured around 550AD....
This is a large rock, the gravitational effect it would have on the oceans is utterly minute compared with everthing else going on in them. Waving your hands about over the sea would apply more gravitational force.
Or maybe historically, it shaped events (much like comets before battles) as it probably would appear as a new brighter star in the sky.
The object simply appears to be a rock of around 100m size. Comets are bright because they emit dust and gas which both scatters sunlight and is converted to plasma by the solar wind. The dust clouds and tail surrounding a comet are huge as well.
Think of orbits as though the object were constantly falling. The difference is, the direction in which they are falling is constantly changing.. at a rate that allows it to never lose or gain distance.
Assuming you have a circular orbit. Even though the speed of an object in a circular orbit is constant its velocity is not, since it is constantly changing direction. A change in velocity is called an "acceleration". The acceleration of any object is proportional to an external force exerted on it divided by the mass of the object being accelerated. Where an object is accelerated by gravity the force is proportional to the mass of the object. Thus the acceleration does not depend on the mass.
Force of sun on asteroid: outside force
Force of asteroid on sun: not involved
Actually the force on the Sun is exactly the same as the force on the asteroid. Gravity is a symetrical force. When you have gravity acting between objects of very different mass you can ignore the effect of the force on the more massive object. Whilst the attraction between the sun and an asteroid causes the asteroid to orbit the sun it is several orders of magnitude too small to overcome the sun's inertia. Only when dealing with gravitational attraction between objects of similar mass does the symetical nature of gravity become relevent.
Galileo figured out in the 17th cenutry that all objects reguardless of mass fall at the same acceleration. Where have you been in the past 350 years or so?
In physics terms, falling and orbiting, due to gravity, are the same thing. Which is why objects in Earth orbit are said to be in "freefall". In both cases you have an object under gravitational acceleration from a much more massive object.
Hint: why does a low earth orbit -- like the Space Shuttle's -- always take the same time? Orbital period depends only on the mass of the earth and the radius of the orbit, not of the satellite.
The gravitational force on the orbiting object does depend on its mass. But an orbit involves an acceleration. Newton's second law gives that F=ma or a=F/m. Where the force in question is gravity the force is directly proportional to the mass of the object being accelerated. A little basic algebra demonstrates that the mass of an object accelerated by gravity is not a factor in its acceleration. The major factor for an orbit of the shuttle is the distance between the shuttle and the Earth's centre of mass. The shuttle having gone from the Earth's surface makes negligable difference to the Earth's mass nor does the amount of matter which falls to the Earth from space daily. In the same way that calculating something in solar orbit does not require adjusting for the particles and photons the sun throws off. Planets gain mass and stars lose mass constantly, but it makes so little difference to the total mass of the bodies in question.
So why won't 2002 AA29 ever hit the earth? Do a google search on the Jovian Trojans. Or look up Lagrange Points. Or just consider the complexity of a three body system.
If it was near Earth you'd have a 4 body problem anyway.
Guys, Galieo had a look at this one, once. Thinks about it. Objects of different masses accelerate at the same rate in a uniform gravitational field. The duct-tape anology is perfectly correct also.
It's more or less a modern version of an analogy Galieo used. Newton worked out the maths. The force on the smaller object is F=G*m*M/(d*d), from Newton's formula for gravity. From Newton's second law you get F=m*a. Thus m*a=G*m*M/(d*d). m, which is the smaller mass cancels, giving a=G*M/(d*d). N.B. an object is orbit is as much under acceleration as one being dropped from a tower.
It is also intriguing since no 'trojans' have been discovered for the Earth and this could signal that we do in fact have some. Trojans are asteroids that occupy the 4th and 5th Lagrangian points about a larger body.
These are approximatly 1 AU from Earth. Hardly near...
(Jupiter has the most, due to its large mass).
What also matters is size and mass distrubution. The mathematics treats all objects as though all their mass is concentrated at a single point. Since planets and stars are not actually points Lagrange "points" are actually regions of space.
Because of the physics involved in a 2 body system where any additional bodies have negligible mass compared to the original 2, there are a few 'stable' points where the gravitational forces cancel out...these are known as Lagrangian points. L4 and L5 are co-orbital to the less-massive object (Jupiter, Earth, whatever).
There are 5 such points. L4 and L5 are co-orbital 60 degees ahead and behind the orbiting object.
I am curious, though, if they say it's effectively a second moon, why are there no stories about it from 550AD? Or are there stories and we just thought of them as novas or other odd phenomenon? Even if it is 100 meters, I would think it would show up.
What matters is its optical magnitude. You cannot see a manmade structure of similar size on the surface of the Earth from orbit. Even a skyscraper which reflects considerably more light than an asteroid.
I noticed a few people wondering how this would affect our planetary tides, orbit, etc. This would NOT affect the earth at all.
An object this size would have less effect on an ocean than flying an airliner over the same ocean. Gravity follows an inverse square law. I'm not even sure an asteroid made of nutronium that size would have sufficent mass to cause much in the way of tidal effects.
Hell, it wouldn't even make that big of a crater if it hit us (why do I think I'm going to get flamed for that?
Actually the worst thing an asteroid can do is hit the ocean, since a tsunami can propergate over an entire ocean basin. This isn't even than big compared with typical sea depth.
The Earth of course revolves around the sun completing one revolution every year,
The Earth takes one year to orbit the sun. It also rotates on its axis at a rate which has nothing at all to do to the orbital period. Currently the Earth rotates just over 366 times per orbit. What we measure as a "day" is slightly more than one revolution of the Earth, because the Earth has moved a considerable distance in the time taken to revolve around its axis once.
but the Moon also revolves around the Earth in its own orbit.
The Moon rotates on its axis exactly once per orbit. Hence it keeps the same face towards Earth all the time.
If we are able to collect enough of these "friendly" asteroids, or "trojans" as the article calls them, we can think of establishing colonies on these.
"trojans" usually refers to asteroids captured in L4 and L5 positions. Usually the Jupiter/Sol Lagrange points. These are 60 degrees away in the orbit. Earth/Sol L4 and L5 are about an AU away from Earth. The Luna/Earth Lagrange points are rather more useful.
Along with space elevators [slashdot.org], there will be micro-colonies on each of these asteroids, between which people can travel, just like between different continents. The only issue is when the asteroids decide to take a different orbit!
Not really a problem for a space elevator. The only major trick is making sure that the centre of mass is in equatorial geosynchronous orbit at all times. You start construction in the orbit you want and build a structure going both "up" and "down".
On a side note, shouldnt we be trying to go out, attach small effecient space engines to these fly bys and forcing them into orbit either around the earth or the moon to possibly be used one day to slingshot off at a more deadly threat?
If you can redirect asteroids into such orbit it is very easy to change such a system into a weapon of mass destruction. No changes of the hardware are needed. The asteroid dosn't care if it's in stable Earth orbit, unstable Earth orbit or goint to collide with Earth.
One proposed resolution [space.com] is the Zookeeper Hypothesis, ie, they could have contacted us but are just waiting and watching for us to evolve, a la 2001.
The idea of not bothering less advanced cultures occurs quite a bit in science fiction. Possibly the best known would be the Star Trek prime directive.
If so, then wouldn't they want to put a probe near the Earth, which swoops down every few centuries or so for a close look, to see if any thing interesting has happened?
If you wanted to build something to watch Earth then Luna makes a far better place. It's rotation locked with Earth and big enough to hide even a large facility.
1) Thousandths of an inch are useful in measuring machine tolerances, while millimeters are two gross and micrometers too fine.
Since the second world war both the Imperial and US (English) inch have been defined as being exactly 25.4mm Prior to then these two inches were different enough that precision machine components would not fit. So in reality thousandths of an inch are 25.4 microns.
2) Celcius is not fine grained enough to figure out how to dress for the weather, while Fahrenheit allows one to easily judge whether or not to wear a jacket.
The weather forcast is always right, the weather never changes in a day, there is no variation in temperature over the forcast area? People were deciding to wear/not wear jackets long before any precision temperature scales were invented.
I military aviation, we have all of that you mention plus, on the topographical maps, the horozontal distance is in kilometers (metric) and the vertical distance/elevation is in feet! The good thing is the altimiter is in feet too, but still..
But your speed is measured in knots, so you need convert back and forth between kilometers and nautical miles.
You think that's bad? As a student pilot, I've learned that the aviation industry has the biggest problem with unit consistency.
There is a series of Discovery channel involving building a light aircraft, one of the first points the presenter made was that the construction involved using strange mixtures of units. You also have fuel load on commercial aircraft being measured as a weight, thousands of pounds; whilst dispensed as a volume; either litres, US gallons or imperial gallons depending where the plane fills up. Messing up the cacluations leading to a flight crew having to test the gliding abilities of an airliner over Canada.
I really wish us stubborn americans would just switch to SI...
The US signed the "Treaty of the metre" a long time ago, the US Congress explicitally has the power to set weights and measures so it's really a political problem.
totally agree. laser printer prints run around $0.015/page for toner and about $6.00/ream for nice (but not too nice) paper. So a 500 page book would print out at about $14, plus about $3 to bind it at Kinkos, or somewhere else that can do a nice sealed velo bind for a grand total of $17 make it $25 and you have a nice profit margin/per book although you'd still need to sell a lot to make the original time invested in producing a 500 page book worth while, unless it was simply an itch that you needed to scratch.
Depends what the cover prise of the book was in the first place. Also this probably isn't an unreasonable for a lending library. If the result is a better quality of book, with better bindings. Currently all libraries can do is laminate the covers of paperback books. But that dosn't help with quality of paper or glue.
Laser printers cost a magnitude less per page to print. And a laser printed copy can be as good or better than a mass published book.
Considering standard of paper used in many books, it would hardly be suprising if a laser printed copy were better. Just that the capital costs are rather higher than with an inkjet printer.
Laser printers cost a magnitude less per page to print. And a laser printed copy can be as good or better than a mass published book.
Plenty of larger laser printers have a duplexing option. Also something like a LJ 4100 prints considerably quicker than a 5P.
I mean, sure they're targetted towards certain audiences which are watching the current show,
In theory, it's not too hard to find examples to make you think: "What rational person would assume that anyone watching programme X would want to buy product Y."
It's particularly obvious when you get an American show shown on one of the Terrestrial channels in the UK (where you cannot have more than 7min/hour advertising) or on the BBC, where you don't get any commercials.
Which means that an "hour" programme will actually fit into a 50 minute slot, commercial or a 45 minute slot, BBC. Non terestrial TV can show up to 12 minutes ads per hour and can pad the rest with promotional material.
It always seemed to be most obvious in Babylon 5 - they'd have some tense moment in the plot come up (spaceship charging up weapons...) and then fade to black, fade up to black and essentially re-play the last bit of footage before continuing.
Quite possibly whilst the visual is identical the incidental music is not. Which makes re-editing the scene difficult, assuming the broadcaster is allowed to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
These specialized applications are generally installed only with a single Windows OS release. The OS is not patched or updated unless by the vendor. Applications other than what the vendor supplied are not installed.
This may well include such things as Microsoft updates/service packs as well as anti-virus software.
They probably *could* do the same thing under Linux, but I'd rather that they not do it.
Effectivly what you have is an embedded application server. You can do this quite easily with Linux, possibly even easier that with Windows because of better remote admin features and the ability to run on a wider variety of hardware. e.g. try having a Windows machine which has no video card with a serial port as "console"...
Sure for many things, Linux doesn't have support for the high-end, High availability hardware (though this is on its way).
Nor does NT/2000/XP, it's more likely that Linux can support this hardware than Windows. Simply because Linux has been ported to a wide range of architectures, Windows is effectivly stuck with one.
What you say makes no sense. How is your network Win2k? Your network is composed of switches and routers that transport IP among other things.
It appears to be fairly common terminology, especially amongst, the technically illiterate, to describe networks based around what OS some server or other on it is running. These kind of people tend to get confused with by an answer of "ethernet" let alone specific protocols or types of cable.
Maybe if the asteroid was shaped like, say, the Oregon Trail. Or the Great Wall. Or the Luxor. You can see all those from orbit.
Only if it were of similar size. This is something like 100 metres, which isn't very big at all. Even at closest approach this object is something like 7 times the moon's orbit away. You'd have trouble making out the great wall from that distance...
Now, the article says that the asteroid doesn't come closer than 3.6 million miles.... However, it'd be interesting to see any type of effects it may have environmentally, however minimal. Perhaps it may alter tides (albeit slightly) Also, be interesting to see if any significant events occured around 550AD....
This is a large rock, the gravitational effect it would have on the oceans is utterly minute compared with everthing else going on in them. Waving your hands about over the sea would apply more gravitational force.
Or maybe historically, it shaped events (much like comets before battles) as it probably would appear as a new brighter star in the sky.
The object simply appears to be a rock of around 100m size. Comets are bright because they emit dust and gas which both scatters sunlight and is converted to plasma by the solar wind. The dust clouds and tail surrounding a comet are huge as well.
No, the orbital speed of the object around the sun won't depend on its mass until it gets so big that its mass is substantial compared to the Sun.
It would need to be something at least a similar order of magnitude to the mass of the Sun. Then working out orbits gets complicated.
Think of orbits as though the object were constantly falling. The difference is, the direction in which they are falling is constantly changing.. at a rate that allows it to never lose or gain distance.
Assuming you have a circular orbit. Even though the speed of an object in a circular orbit is constant its velocity is not, since it is constantly changing direction. A change in velocity is called an "acceleration". The acceleration of any object is proportional to an external force exerted on it divided by the mass of the object being accelerated. Where an object is accelerated by gravity the force is proportional to the mass of the object. Thus the acceleration does not depend on the mass.
Force of sun on asteroid: outside force
Force of asteroid on sun: not involved
Actually the force on the Sun is exactly the same as the force on the asteroid. Gravity is a symetrical force. When you have gravity acting between objects of very different mass you can ignore the effect of the force on the more massive object. Whilst the attraction between the sun and an asteroid causes the asteroid to orbit the sun it is several orders of magnitude too small to overcome the sun's inertia. Only when dealing with gravitational attraction between objects of similar mass does the symetical nature of gravity become relevent.
Galileo figured out in the 17th cenutry that all objects reguardless of mass fall at the same acceleration. Where have you been in the past 350 years or so?
In physics terms, falling and orbiting, due to gravity, are the same thing. Which is why objects in Earth orbit are said to be in "freefall". In both cases you have an object under gravitational acceleration from a much more massive object.
Hint: why does a low earth orbit -- like the Space Shuttle's -- always take the same time? Orbital period depends only on the mass of the earth and the radius of the orbit, not of the satellite.
The gravitational force on the orbiting object does depend on its mass. But an orbit involves an acceleration. Newton's second law gives that F=ma or a=F/m. Where the force in question is gravity the force is directly proportional to the mass of the object being accelerated. A little basic algebra demonstrates that the mass of an object accelerated by gravity is not a factor in its acceleration.
The major factor for an orbit of the shuttle is the distance between the shuttle and the Earth's centre of mass. The shuttle having gone from the Earth's surface makes negligable difference to the Earth's mass nor does the amount of matter which falls to the Earth from space daily. In the same way that calculating something in solar orbit does not require adjusting for the particles and photons the sun throws off. Planets gain mass and stars lose mass constantly, but it makes so little difference to the total mass of the bodies in question.
So why won't 2002 AA29 ever hit the earth? Do a google search on the Jovian Trojans. Or look up Lagrange Points. Or just consider the complexity of a three body system.
If it was near Earth you'd have a 4 body problem anyway.
Guys, Galieo had a look at this one, once. Thinks about it. Objects of different masses accelerate at the same rate in a uniform gravitational field. The duct-tape anology is perfectly correct also.
It's more or less a modern version of an analogy Galieo used. Newton worked out the maths. The force on the smaller object is F=G*m*M/(d*d), from Newton's formula for gravity. From Newton's second law you get F=m*a. Thus m*a=G*m*M/(d*d). m, which is the smaller mass cancels, giving a=G*M/(d*d).
N.B. an object is orbit is as much under acceleration as one being dropped from a tower.
It is also intriguing since no 'trojans' have been discovered for the Earth and this could signal that we do in fact have some. Trojans are asteroids that occupy the 4th and 5th Lagrangian points about a larger body.
These are approximatly 1 AU from Earth. Hardly near...
(Jupiter has the most, due to its large mass).
What also matters is size and mass distrubution. The mathematics treats all objects as though all their mass is concentrated at a single point. Since planets and stars are not actually points Lagrange "points" are actually regions of space.
Because of the physics involved in a 2 body system where any additional bodies have negligible mass compared to the original 2, there are a few 'stable' points where the gravitational forces cancel out...these are known as Lagrangian points. L4 and L5 are co-orbital to the less-massive object (Jupiter, Earth, whatever).
There are 5 such points. L4 and L5 are co-orbital 60 degees ahead and behind the orbiting object.
I am curious, though, if they say it's effectively a second moon, why are there no stories about it from 550AD? Or are there stories and we just thought of them as novas or other odd phenomenon? Even if it is 100 meters, I would think it would show up.
What matters is its optical magnitude. You cannot see a manmade structure of similar size on the surface of the Earth from orbit. Even a skyscraper which reflects considerably more light than an asteroid.
Uh, wouldn't that screw up the tidal system?
Go wave your hand over the nearest sea. That has more affect in terms of gravity than an object this size in Earth orbit.
I noticed a few people wondering how this would affect our planetary tides, orbit, etc. This would NOT affect the earth at all.
An object this size would have less effect on an ocean than flying an airliner over the same ocean. Gravity follows an inverse square law. I'm not even sure an asteroid made of nutronium that size would have sufficent mass to cause much in the way of tidal effects.
Hell, it wouldn't even make that big of a crater if it hit us (why do I think I'm going to get flamed for that?
Actually the worst thing an asteroid can do is hit the ocean, since a tsunami can propergate over an entire ocean basin. This isn't even than big compared with typical sea depth.
The Earth of course revolves around the sun completing one revolution every year,
The Earth takes one year to orbit the sun. It also rotates on its axis at a rate which has nothing at all to do to the orbital period. Currently the Earth rotates just over 366 times per orbit. What we measure as a "day" is slightly more than one revolution of the Earth, because the Earth has moved a considerable distance in the time taken to revolve around its axis once.
but the Moon also revolves around the Earth in its own orbit.
The Moon rotates on its axis exactly once per orbit. Hence it keeps the same face towards Earth all the time.
If we are able to collect enough of these "friendly" asteroids, or "trojans" as the article calls them, we can think of establishing colonies on these.
"trojans" usually refers to asteroids captured in L4 and L5 positions. Usually the Jupiter/Sol Lagrange points. These are 60 degrees away in the orbit. Earth/Sol L4 and L5 are about an AU away from Earth. The Luna/Earth Lagrange points are rather more useful.
Along with space elevators [slashdot.org], there will be micro-colonies on each of these asteroids, between which people can travel, just like between different continents. The only issue is when the asteroids decide to take a different orbit!
Not really a problem for a space elevator. The only major trick is making sure that the centre of mass is in equatorial geosynchronous orbit at all times. You start construction in the orbit you want and build a structure going both "up" and "down".
On a side note, shouldnt we be trying to go out, attach small effecient space engines to these fly bys and forcing them into orbit either around the earth or the moon to possibly be used one day to slingshot off at a more deadly threat?
If you can redirect asteroids into such orbit it is very easy to change such a system into a weapon of mass destruction.
No changes of the hardware are needed. The asteroid dosn't care if it's in stable Earth orbit, unstable Earth orbit or goint to collide with Earth.
One proposed resolution [space.com] is the Zookeeper Hypothesis, ie, they could have contacted us but are just waiting and watching for us to evolve, a la 2001.
The idea of not bothering less advanced cultures occurs quite a bit in science fiction. Possibly the best known would be the Star Trek prime directive.
If so, then wouldn't they want to put a probe near the Earth, which swoops down every few centuries or so for a close look, to see if any thing interesting has happened?
If you wanted to build something to watch Earth then Luna makes a far better place. It's rotation locked with Earth and big enough to hide even a large facility.
1) Thousandths of an inch are useful in measuring machine tolerances, while millimeters are two gross and micrometers too fine.
Since the second world war both the Imperial and US (English) inch have been defined as being exactly 25.4mm Prior to then these two inches were different enough that precision machine components would not fit. So in reality thousandths of an inch are 25.4 microns.
2) Celcius is not fine grained enough to figure out how to dress for the weather, while Fahrenheit allows one to easily judge whether or not to wear a jacket.
The weather forcast is always right, the weather never changes in a day, there is no variation in temperature over the forcast area? People were deciding to wear/not wear jackets long before any precision temperature scales were invented.
I military aviation, we have all of that you mention plus, on the topographical maps, the horozontal distance is in kilometers (metric) and the vertical distance/elevation is in feet! The good thing is the altimiter is in feet too, but still..
But your speed is measured in knots, so you need convert back and forth between kilometers and nautical miles.
You think that's bad? As a student pilot, I've learned that the aviation industry has the biggest problem with unit consistency.
There is a series of Discovery channel involving building a light aircraft, one of the first points the presenter made was that the construction involved using strange mixtures of units.
You also have fuel load on commercial aircraft being measured as a weight, thousands of pounds; whilst dispensed as a volume; either litres, US gallons or imperial gallons depending where the plane fills up. Messing up the cacluations leading to a flight crew having to test the gliding abilities of an airliner over Canada.
I really wish us stubborn americans would just switch to SI...
The US signed the "Treaty of the metre" a long time ago, the US Congress explicitally has the power to set weights and measures so it's really a political problem.
totally agree. laser printer prints run around $0.015/page for toner and about $6.00/ream for nice (but not too nice) paper. So a 500 page book would print out at about $14, plus about $3 to bind it at Kinkos, or somewhere else that can do a nice sealed velo bind for a grand total of $17 make it $25 and you have a nice profit margin/per book although you'd still need to sell a lot to make the original time invested in producing a 500 page book worth while, unless it was simply an itch that you needed to scratch.
Depends what the cover prise of the book was in the first place. Also this probably isn't an unreasonable for a lending library. If the result is a better quality of book, with better bindings. Currently all libraries can do is laminate the covers of paperback books. But that dosn't help with quality of paper or glue.
Laser printers cost a magnitude less per page to print. And a laser printed copy can be as good or better than a mass published book.
Considering standard of paper used in many books, it would hardly be suprising if a laser printed copy were better. Just that the capital costs are rather higher than with an inkjet printer.
Laser printers cost a magnitude less per page to print. And a laser printed copy can be as good or better than a mass published book.
Plenty of larger laser printers have a duplexing option. Also something like a LJ 4100 prints considerably quicker than a 5P.
I mean, sure they're targetted towards certain audiences which are watching the current show,
In theory, it's not too hard to find examples to make you think: "What rational person would assume that anyone watching programme X would want to buy product Y."
It's particularly obvious when you get an American show shown on one of the Terrestrial channels in the UK (where you cannot have more than 7min/hour advertising) or on the BBC, where you don't get any commercials.
Which means that an "hour" programme will actually fit into a 50 minute slot, commercial or a 45 minute slot, BBC. Non terestrial TV can show up to 12 minutes ads per hour and can pad the rest with promotional material.
It always seemed to be most obvious in Babylon 5 - they'd have some tense moment in the plot come up (spaceship charging up weapons...) and then fade to black, fade up to black and essentially re-play the last bit of footage before continuing.
Quite possibly whilst the visual is identical the incidental music is not. Which makes re-editing the scene difficult, assuming the broadcaster is allowed to do this.