Yeah, I had to have a CAT scan done a few years back and I asked if I could get a copy (figured a picture of my brain would be an excellent thing to hang on my office wall). They said they could print another, but they'd charge me $80 for it.
I passed, but I kinda regret it... seeing as I'd need a $3000 CAT scan to get another one.
While I think it's clear in this case that the author was being satirical, it's difficult to say where the line should be drawn.
What if I posted the name and address of an abortion doctor on a website with the statement "oh I wish this person would just die"?
Expressing a desire for someone to die could be construed as inciting someone else to actually perform the act. It's a fine line to be sure, since the person doesn't actually say they want someone else to perform the act, or even that they want the person to be killed by another human.
I'm not sure you can explain why light is constant (or at least I've never heard an explanation). The reason it is simply stated, is that it has been measured to be so (measured time delays for light travelling with and against the Earth's rotation are exact to the precision of our measurements). Look up the Michelson interferometer if you want more details.
Of course... I guess I jumped to the conclusion that the previous poster was referring to JWST, since it's generally considered the "Hubble replacement."
Yeah, I was lazy with my last post, or I would have made that point.
The real key is what can you do with the technology/resources you have available?
While I am a great fan of the science Hubble has produced, I worry that too many people (like the grandparent) buy into the hype NASA has generated in order to justify the massive expense.
You are referring to JWST (James Web Space Telescope), which is still ~7 years from launch (my guess is more like 10, but at least they have a design now).
Why not? The point of Hubble is to be diffraction limited rather than seeing limited (due to being above the atmosphere).
Adaptive optics makes putting telescopes above the atmosphere unnecessary (or less necessary, AO is still in it's infancy).
If you can build a superior instrument for the cost of a single Hubble reservicing mission, why is it unfair to compare the price/performance to Hubble? No it doesn't have the same "coolness" factor that Hubble has, but as an astronomer, I don't really care about that.
The rights they claim are being infringed are owned by the people they represent. They are NOT claiming that the rights of the person they are contacting are being infringed.
Just because they are incorrect does not mean that semantically the phrase "onwer of the exclusive rights" changes meaning from one party to the next.
At the end of my senior english class in high school, the professor passed around a similar list of top 10 most frequently banned books.
More than half of them were on our reading lists, either in that class, or in previous english classes.
I think anything worth reading has probably been banned by someone, somewhere, since almost by definition it has interesting ideas which must offend/annoy/worry someone.
At some level training is a recurring cost as well, since you can count on finding new hires with MS Office experience, but you can't count on finding people with OSS experience.
This may change in the future, but it certainly isn't the case now.
Let's see... a telescope on the moon would only be useful 2 weeks per month (28 Earth day rotation period).
This is only for an installation on the far side, which would make communications particularly difficult (you would need communications satellites orbiting the moon to relay back to Earth).
That, and the cost of getting it there would be far more than simply servicing Hubble, or even launching new space observatories.
It's more than just bookmarks though, I use 3 computers on a regular basis (my office computer, my laptop, and my home computer).
I really just use my laptop for most tasks so that all my settings and files are available to me anywhere (besides, I just ssh into my office computer from home to work...).
The ability to wander from computer to computer and have everything you need to work automatically (whether it is really located on some other computer) is a fundamental, but soluble problem.
As the previous answer noted, you're a little confused about the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle. In these set of reactions, the carbon is only used as a catalyst for making helium (so you're still turning H -> He, but you're doing it by repeatedly capturing protons (H) and then beta-decaying). See this article for more information on CNO.
Now the argument that the referenced article is using is that less massive stars will stay on the main sequence longer, due to the reduction in CNO efficiency. Thus older globular clusters will have a bluer turnoff than previously expected.
While this will cause a systematic underestimation of the age of globulars by ~0.7-1.0 Gyr, the uncertainties are so large (+/- 1-1.5 Gyr or so), that they are still consistent with the age of the universe derived from CMB observations.
Ahh but it is related to the distance from the object to the observer by Hubble's law (velocity is proportional to distance).
Essentially both you and the parent are partly right. Redshift is a reasonable proxy for distance when you are sufficiently far away that your random relative motion (proper motion) is small relative to your Hubble expansion velocity. The problem is you have to know Hubble's constant very well in order to turn a redshift into a physical distance.
Thus there's a degeneracy where you have to measure distances to a bunch of objects to find Hubble's constant.
That's why you still need other methods of measuring distance. The "distance ladder" builds from very well measured distances using geometric parallax (only good very nearby), then further out using objects whose luminosities are known (from nearby objects whose distances are measured using lower rungs of the "ladder") like variable stars (Cepheids) and type Ia supernovae.
I agree. My wife graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science and Math, but without any programming experience, was unable to find a job.
So when I went off to graduate school in Astronomy (no real life for me thank you very much), she went back to school to be able to teach CS at a high-school level.
She's now finishing off her student teaching after only a year of classes, and she'll have a Masters in Education after just a few more classes (which she'll take concurrently with teaching).
Of course it was a very expensive year, but the starting salaries in Chicago for teachers are acutally not bad (mid to upper 30's for an teacher with no experience).
Doug
Re:a real use for this kind of technology
on
The Face Detector
·
· Score: 1
I remember a Scientific American where they were at an MIT AI lab where they had something pretty close.
Everyone wears a little pin radio transmitter, then when you are looking at a person, a special set of glasses you wear pops up their name in the lower right corner. Not enough to really see, but enough to help spark name recognition.
So they got out of the face recognition problem, which seems harder than it's really worth.
Thank you! I can't stand how, in the minds of the masses, Computer Science = programming.
Computer Science is fundamentally a branch of mathematics, essentially algorithm and information theory. If all you want to do is be a code-monkey, then a (good!) CS program probably isn't for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I had to have a CAT scan done a few years back and I asked if I could get a copy (figured a picture of my brain would be an excellent thing to hang on my office wall). They said they could print another, but they'd charge me $80 for it.
I passed, but I kinda regret it... seeing as I'd need a $3000 CAT scan to get another one.
Doug
Yeah, I used to laugh at such jokes... then I got married...
Doug
While I think it's clear in this case that the author was being satirical, it's difficult to say where the line should be drawn.
What if I posted the name and address of an abortion doctor on a website with the statement "oh I wish this person would just die"?
Expressing a desire for someone to die could be construed as inciting someone else to actually perform the act. It's a fine line to be sure, since the person doesn't actually say they want someone else to perform the act, or even that they want the person to be killed by another human.
Doug
I'm not sure you can explain why light is constant (or at least I've never heard an explanation). The reason it is simply stated, is that it has been measured to be so (measured time delays for light travelling with and against the Earth's rotation are exact to the precision of our measurements). Look up the Michelson interferometer if you want more details.
Doug
Of course... I guess I jumped to the conclusion that the previous poster was referring to JWST, since it's generally considered the "Hubble replacement."
Doug
Yeah, I was lazy with my last post, or I would have made that point.
The real key is what can you do with the technology/resources you have available?
While I am a great fan of the science Hubble has produced, I worry that too many people (like the grandparent) buy into the hype NASA has generated in order to justify the massive expense.
Doug
True... and if Astronomers had the budget of the military we'd have a fleet of modern Hubble's out at L2.
Unfortunately, our society has different priorities...
Doug
You are referring to JWST (James Web Space Telescope), which is still ~7 years from launch (my guess is more like 10, but at least they have a design now).
Doug
Why not? The point of Hubble is to be diffraction limited rather than seeing limited (due to being above the atmosphere).
Adaptive optics makes putting telescopes above the atmosphere unnecessary (or less necessary, AO is still in it's infancy).
If you can build a superior instrument for the cost of a single Hubble reservicing mission, why is it unfair to compare the price/performance to Hubble? No it doesn't have the same "coolness" factor that Hubble has, but as an astronomer, I don't really care about that.
Doug
You should care because the definition of what you should and shouldn't be doing can always be changed.
Doug
It's the "choose your own adventure" style of learning!
Doug
Yes, that's correct. The parachute didn't open, and their cameras followed it all the way into the ground.
:)
It was pretty cool looking, let me tell you, but I hope they can recover enough to do science.
They are currently showing the craft sticking half out of the ground... it looks like it's mostly intact.
Actually it looks a lot like the power generators on Hoth from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Doug
Exactly! I don't see why people can't read the statement for what it says.
It's just boilerplate legalese for saying "we're authorized by the true owners to make these accusations even though we ourselves have no such rights"
The claim itself, if false, is another matter entirely, and has nothing to do with the perjury language.
Doug
The rights they claim are being infringed are owned by the people they represent. They are NOT claiming that the rights of the person they are contacting are being infringed.
Just because they are incorrect does not mean that semantically the phrase "onwer of the exclusive rights" changes meaning from one party to the next.
Doug
How are they purjuring themselves? They ARE authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
That has nothing to with whether or not their action has merit.
Doug
At the end of my senior english class in high school, the professor passed around a similar list of top 10 most frequently banned books.
More than half of them were on our reading lists, either in that class, or in previous english classes.
I think anything worth reading has probably been banned by someone, somewhere, since almost by definition it has interesting ideas which must offend/annoy/worry someone.
Doug
At some level training is a recurring cost as well, since you can count on finding new hires with MS Office experience, but you can't count on finding people with OSS experience.
This may change in the future, but it certainly isn't the case now.
Doug
Let's see... a telescope on the moon would only be useful 2 weeks per month (28 Earth day rotation period).
This is only for an installation on the far side, which would make communications particularly difficult (you would need communications satellites orbiting the moon to relay back to Earth).
That, and the cost of getting it there would be far more than simply servicing Hubble, or even launching new space observatories.
Doug
Why exactly would they notify the X-prize rules committee when the flight does not conform to the rules necessary for a successful X-prize flight?
Doug
It's more than just bookmarks though, I use 3 computers on a regular basis (my office computer, my laptop, and my home computer).
I really just use my laptop for most tasks so that all my settings and files are available to me anywhere (besides, I just ssh into my office computer from home to work...).
The ability to wander from computer to computer and have everything you need to work automatically (whether it is really located on some other computer) is a fundamental, but soluble problem.
Doug
As the previous answer noted, you're a little confused about the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle. In these set of reactions, the carbon is only used as a catalyst for making helium (so you're still turning H -> He, but you're doing it by repeatedly capturing protons (H) and then beta-decaying). See this article for more information on CNO.
Now the argument that the referenced article is using is that less massive stars will stay on the main sequence longer, due to the reduction in CNO efficiency. Thus older globular clusters will have a bluer turnoff than previously expected.
While this will cause a systematic underestimation of the age of globulars by ~0.7-1.0 Gyr, the uncertainties are so large (+/- 1-1.5 Gyr or so), that they are still consistent with the age of the universe derived from CMB observations.
Doug
Ahh but it is related to the distance from the object to the observer by Hubble's law (velocity is proportional to distance).
Essentially both you and the parent are partly right. Redshift is a reasonable proxy for distance when you are sufficiently far away that your random relative motion (proper motion) is small relative to your Hubble expansion velocity. The problem is you have to know Hubble's constant very well in order to turn a redshift into a physical distance.
Thus there's a degeneracy where you have to measure distances to a bunch of objects to find Hubble's constant.
That's why you still need other methods of measuring distance. The "distance ladder" builds from very well measured distances using geometric parallax (only good very nearby), then further out using objects whose luminosities are known (from nearby objects whose distances are measured using lower rungs of the "ladder") like variable stars (Cepheids) and type Ia supernovae.
Doug
I agree. My wife graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science and Math, but without any programming experience, was unable to find a job.
So when I went off to graduate school in Astronomy (no real life for me thank you very much), she went back to school to be able to teach CS at a high-school level.
She's now finishing off her student teaching after only a year of classes, and she'll have a Masters in Education after just a few more classes (which she'll take concurrently with teaching).
Of course it was a very expensive year, but the starting salaries in Chicago for teachers are acutally not bad (mid to upper 30's for an teacher with no experience).
Doug
I remember a Scientific American where they were at an MIT AI lab where they had something pretty close.
Everyone wears a little pin radio transmitter, then when you are looking at a person, a special set of glasses you wear pops up their name in the lower right corner. Not enough to really see, but enough to help spark name recognition.
So they got out of the face recognition problem, which seems harder than it's really worth.
Doug
Thank you! I can't stand how, in the minds of the masses, Computer Science = programming.
Computer Science is fundamentally a branch of mathematics, essentially algorithm and information theory. If all you want to do is be a code-monkey, then a (good!) CS program probably isn't for you.
Doug