This list seems to be a joke.
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1. Babbage never built his difference engine, so how could Lovelace write programs for it? I would suggest that who ever wrote the first patterns for the Jacquard Loom" deserves more credit than she.
2. While Grace Hopper (who I met twice) was been frequently accused of fluffing her own legend, and enjoyed telling the story of the "first computer bug", she never claimed to have found the moth that got caught in the Mark II - the machine operators did, and taped it to the operations log.
3. I'm sorry but Curie could not have possibly carried plutonium in her pockets, since she died in 1934 and plutonium wasn't discovered until 1941.
4. Darryl Hannah?!? Paris Hilton?!? What about Sally Ride? Judith Resnick or any of the other female astronauts?
My "argument" is that money spent on Hubble is better spent on other, newer telescopes. How does pointing out that Webb will be able to do work that ground based scopes can't, and will have greater light gathering power than Hubble, "refute" that?
I suggest you rethink the rest of your replies as well, since you obviously never got that.
We don't need a better visible-light space telescope, which is why Spitzer, WISE and James Webb are all infrared scopes - infrared is the band that is least able to penetrate our atmosphere.
Now, if we put an array of space-based visible-light telescopes up, we could use them to "virtual lenses" thousands of kilometers in size; I'm off the edge of my math here, but I believe such an array would let you see surface features on planets in other solar systems.
If you had followed the thread you would have noticed that I was replying to someone who said the only point of repairing Hubble was to give manned missions something to do. In other words, a PR campaign, not science.
That's all true - but Hubble can't see them.
on
The Hubble Lives On
·
· Score: 1
That's all true - but Hubble is optimized for visible light; it has some near-infrared and near-uv capabilities, but NASA uses other space-based telescopes for the more exotic frequencies; Chandra for X-Rays, COBE for microwaves, Spitzer for infrared, Compton, etc..
Don't get me wrong - space-based scopes are a great idea; but obsessing over Hubble instead of focusing on how to create something even better is pointless. As others have mentioned, for the price of a Hubble repair mission, you could create a truly monstrous array of telescopes on earth.
And all things I am aware of, you can't spend any time at a telescope without being aware of light pollution - whether natural or not.
But Hubble has similar problems - or did you think that Hubble hides in the Earth's shadow 24 hours per day? Long duration observations must be very carefully planned to avoid letting Hubble point even generally towards the sun; and moon glow and even earth glow are issues.
1) Apparently you aren't considering the use of multiple scopes to get far, far higher resolution from groups of ground based scopes - like Keck - than you can get from Hubble's small mirror. There's reason Hubble isn't being used to look for extrasolar planets.
2) Yes Webb works in a different band. Sorry, you won't get pictures as pretty. But you *will* get a much larger light gathering system than Hubble has, and you will get long term access to a band of light that... how did you put it? "Doesn't penetrate Earth's atmosphere". Here's a hint. Visible light is the least useful of Hubble's cameras, because visible light penetrates the atmosphere.
Repairing Hubble is a PR mission to make APOD subscribers happy, nothing more.
Who would have thought that
on
The Hubble Lives On
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
the Charismatic Megafauna problem would affect NASA?
Since Hubble's replacement is already under construction, and since ground based scopes like Keck exceed Hubble's capabilities, what is the benefit of dropping hundreds of millions of dollars repairing it?
Each nation already controls their own domains, nobody's stopping them from setting up their own root DNS servers, nobody's complaining about centralized assignment of MAC addresses, so what the heck is the problem?
If the Internet split into two or more parts that would be a "good thing" - competition is the source of all evolution.
The way I read it, portions of the app are actually encrypted with AES; which is interesting because it implies the decryption key must be part of the kernel, which implies the key is fixed.
So, I'm not sure what this actually accomplishes - I mean, it prevents you from easily disassembling binary, but how does it prevent you from running on non-Apple hardware?
Maybe the key is physically burned on some chip in the hardware?
It's the great new Apple nutritional management program. Sure some people complain about the way they use DRM to prevent food sharing, but that's a minor quibble.
Say I'm a black man. I go into a store to buy some bread to feed my family. The shop keep says "that bread aint for sale". I say I have a moral right to take it. Irrefutable.
Nice strawman. Because we all know, any attempt to control my property is equivalent to trying to starve a poor black family.
Your razor blade argument is equally crap. Those blades belong to the store owner. I don't care what you thought, you have no moral or legal right to steal more blades or to force him to give them to you. End of story. Irrefutable.
1) The storm surge that came up the Mississippi coast was 25 feet. It put entire counties under water. More than half a million Mississippians required FEMA assistance. Yet, somehow, their deaths were counted in the tens instead of the hundreds.
2) The behavior of the press in New Orleans had a huge effect on the relief operation. Among other things, the National Guard (who you claim wasn't there) blocked the Red Cross from entering the area because of press reports of snipers and looters. - Snipers and looters who turned out to not exist.
I will, however, concede that I can't find the timeline document I read (I think wikipedia's been changed since then) that pointed out that Blanco had made calls in the press for more troops but never actually sent the legally required documents request Bush to deploy troops in her state, and she refused to give Bush and FEMA control of the Louisiana National Guard units, which meant he had no ability to command them.
announcing that the emperor has no clothes and releasing a swarm of cloth-eating moths into his closet.
If all he had done was publish a paper or document the concern he'd be highly respected. But, instead, he took the hacker's approach of releasing an exploit in order to force them to close the hole.
Except, in this case, the exploit was in violation of federal law.
but the governor of Louisiana didn't authorize their use and once she did, the guard was actively hampered by the press reporting imaginary riots and snipers which redirected the guard from actually helping people.
Seriously, why do you think Mississippi, where the storm surge went right over the shore counties, didn't have the kinds of problems they had in New Orleans?
I have to say, though, I find it amusing that the apache license isn't good enough for FSF development work, but people don't seem to have a problem using apache...
It seems to me that init scripts should state what other services they depend on, then some other program sorts out the optimum (and correct) order to start them in.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Babbage never built his difference engine, so how could Lovelace write programs for it? I would suggest that who ever wrote the first patterns for the Jacquard Loom" deserves more credit than she.
2. While Grace Hopper (who I met twice) was been frequently accused of fluffing her own legend, and enjoyed telling the story of the "first computer bug", she never claimed to have found the moth that got caught in the Mark II - the machine operators did, and taped it to the operations log.
3. I'm sorry but Curie could not have possibly carried plutonium in her pockets, since she died in 1934 and plutonium wasn't discovered until 1941.
4. Darryl Hannah?!? Paris Hilton?!? What about Sally Ride? Judith Resnick or any of the other female astronauts?
allegedly mythical (No it's not!) (Yes it is!) (No it's not!) Airport exploit for Macs?
I still haven't been able to figure out if they've demonstrated a real vulnerability or not...
My "argument" is that money spent on Hubble is better spent on other, newer telescopes. How does pointing out that Webb will be able to do work that ground based scopes can't, and will have greater light gathering power than Hubble, "refute" that?
I suggest you rethink the rest of your replies as well, since you obviously never got that.
We don't need a better visible-light space telescope, which is why Spitzer, WISE and James Webb are all infrared scopes - infrared is the band that is least able to penetrate our atmosphere.
Now, if we put an array of space-based visible-light telescopes up, we could use them to "virtual lenses" thousands of kilometers in size; I'm off the edge of my math here, but I believe such an array would let you see surface features on planets in other solar systems.
If we put something even modestly larger than Hubble in space it would still be better than Keck for imaging.
Which is why we should be working on replacing Hubble instead of fixing it.
Can you imagine if we could put a scope in each of the Lagrange points and used interferometry to combine the images?
I know the orbit of ISS, thanks.
If you had followed the thread you would have noticed that I was replying to someone who said the only point of repairing Hubble was to give manned missions something to do. In other words, a PR campaign, not science.
That's all true - but Hubble is optimized for visible light; it has some near-infrared and near-uv capabilities, but NASA uses other space-based telescopes for the more exotic frequencies; Chandra for X-Rays, COBE for microwaves, Spitzer for infrared, Compton, etc..
Don't get me wrong - space-based scopes are a great idea; but obsessing over Hubble instead of focusing on how to create something even better is pointless. As others have mentioned, for the price of a Hubble repair mission, you could create a truly monstrous array of telescopes on earth.
And all things I am aware of, you can't spend any time at a telescope without being aware of light pollution - whether natural or not.
But Hubble has similar problems - or did you think that Hubble hides in the Earth's shadow 24 hours per day? Long duration observations must be very carefully planned to avoid letting Hubble point even generally towards the sun; and moon glow and even earth glow are issues.
You could build two more Kecks, and faster.
Meanwhile, repairs to Hubble take years of advance planning. Great for emergencies.
1) Apparently you aren't considering the use of multiple scopes to get far, far higher resolution from groups of ground based scopes - like Keck - than you can get from Hubble's small mirror. There's reason Hubble isn't being used to look for extrasolar planets.
2) Yes Webb works in a different band. Sorry, you won't get pictures as pretty. But you *will* get a much larger light gathering system than Hubble has, and you will get long term access to a band of light that... how did you put it? "Doesn't penetrate Earth's atmosphere". Here's a hint. Visible light is the least useful of Hubble's cameras, because visible light penetrates the atmosphere.
Repairing Hubble is a PR mission to make APOD subscribers happy, nothing more.
then strap a scope onto the ISS.
the Charismatic Megafauna problem would affect NASA?
Since Hubble's replacement is already under construction, and since ground based scopes like Keck exceed Hubble's capabilities, what is the benefit of dropping hundreds of millions of dollars repairing it?
Each nation already controls their own domains, nobody's stopping them from setting up their own root DNS servers, nobody's complaining about centralized assignment of MAC addresses, so what the heck is the problem?
If the Internet split into two or more parts that would be a "good thing" - competition is the source of all evolution.
The way I read it, portions of the app are actually encrypted with AES; which is interesting because it implies the decryption key must be part of the kernel, which implies the key is fixed.
So, I'm not sure what this actually accomplishes - I mean, it prevents you from easily disassembling binary, but how does it prevent you from running on non-Apple hardware?
Maybe the key is physically burned on some chip in the hardware?
iFeed?
It's the great new Apple nutritional management program. Sure some people complain about the way they use DRM to prevent food sharing, but that's a minor quibble.
Say I'm a black man. I go into a store to buy some bread to feed my family. The shop keep says "that bread aint for sale". I say I have a moral right to take it. Irrefutable.
Nice strawman. Because we all know, any attempt to control my property is equivalent to trying to starve a poor black family.
Your razor blade argument is equally crap. Those blades belong to the store owner. I don't care what you thought, you have no moral or legal right to steal more blades or to force him to give them to you. End of story. Irrefutable.
If you don't like it, shop somewhere else.
And your ignorance is astonishing.
1) The storm surge that came up the Mississippi coast was 25 feet. It put entire counties under water. More than half a million Mississippians required FEMA assistance. Yet, somehow, their deaths were counted in the tens instead of the hundreds.
2) The behavior of the press in New Orleans had a huge effect on the relief operation. Among other things, the National Guard (who you claim wasn't there) blocked the Red Cross from entering the area because of press reports of snipers and looters. - Snipers and looters who turned out to not exist.
I will, however, concede that I can't find the timeline document I read (I think wikipedia's been changed since then) that pointed out that Blanco had made calls in the press for more troops but never actually sent the legally required documents request Bush to deploy troops in her state, and she refused to give Bush and FEMA control of the Louisiana National Guard units, which meant he had no ability to command them.
Yeah, I can - I can point to his creating an automated script that let anyone create a boarding pass with a false name on it.
announcing that the emperor has no clothes and releasing a swarm of cloth-eating moths into his closet.
If all he had done was publish a paper or document the concern he'd be highly respected. But, instead, he took the hacker's approach of releasing an exploit in order to force them to close the hole.
Except, in this case, the exploit was in violation of federal law.
Hell, why didn't they arrest Andy Bowers of Slate for his research / article too?
Would that be "because Bowers didn't create a website for forging documents"?
That's just a guess.
Improvised Explosive Devices are "military hardware", or that hunting rifles can't be used by snipers.
but the governor of Louisiana didn't authorize their use and once she did, the guard was actively hampered by the press reporting imaginary riots and snipers which redirected the guard from actually helping people.
Seriously, why do you think Mississippi, where the storm surge went right over the shore counties, didn't have the kinds of problems they had in New Orleans?
Thanks for the cites;
I have to say, though, I find it amusing that the apache license isn't good enough for FSF development work, but people don't seem to have a problem using apache...
It seems to me that init scripts should state what other services they depend on, then some other program sorts out the optimum (and correct) order to start them in.
That's one of the main features of launchd.
But why develop a whole new mechanism, why not just use launchd?