Yes, I edited/etc/wpa_supplicant.conf with jed or emacs!
It wasn't hard at all (Did you try "man wpa_supplicant"?), but what you might be having trouble with is the driver for the wireless card. I had to use ndiswrapper to load the Broadcom driver from my Windoze XP partition. That requirement might(? I don't know) have gone away with the latest Linux kernel. Finding the driver directory on the Windoze partition, and especially the correct driver in that directory, was a bit of a pain, solved by using trial and error.
But all in all it's not much harder than properly setting up a wireless router.
The article was horrible, and may have been referring to plans for the next generation ground based optical telescope after the Thirty Meter Telescope. It is nicknamed OWL now, for "Overwhelmingly Large Telescope", and don't expect to see it for at least another 30 years.
Radio waves are light, not sound. They just have a longer wavelength than the light we see with our eyes. Just because we listen to audio signals on radios doesn't mean that radio waves are sound.
Even if EEGs were high frequency signals, people measuring lab signals could fall back on building a Faraday cage around the whole room to block outside interference...like say, anything from space.
I don't know about this computer, but while I was doing my Ph.D. in astronomy a prof (John Lester) had a computer named stella. It didn't stand out among a bunch of other computers named after constellations or famous dead astrophysicists, until one of his students told me that his other computer was named "stanley".
radio telescopes can more or less be placed anywhere, while opticals need the best atmospherical conditions they can get. You will see that most telescopes 'in the middle of nowhere' are optical ones.
Only because there are more optical telescopes than radio ones. Both radio and optical professional telescopes tend to be far away from large population centers to avoid manmade interference (streetlights, etc., for optical, a wide variety of electronics for radio). LOFAR, being in a heavily populated area, will have to deal with a lot of interference, and radio astronomers around the world are watching to see how well they can cope.
As for the economics of location, there's the cost of building it in a place and then there's how much money you can get to build it there.
They have to get that close to each other first. What's the distance to Alpha Centauri again?
About 4 light years. But most stars aren't quite as isolated as the Sun.
Approximately 70% of stars are in binary systems, i.e. orbiting each other. This is possible because stars form in bunches from rather large clouds of gas and dust (molecular clouds). These bunches gradually disperse as they orbit around the galaxy, and our Sun has been around the block a few times.
Along with gravitational waves mass transfer back and forth between the two stars in a close binary affects their orbit. (Neutron stars start out as large gaseous stars.)
Our sun is in the galactic suburbs. Near the galactic center or in globular clusters stars tend to be much closer together.
So our Sun, and most stars, aren't likely to collide with another star, but some stars are. We can even tell from the appearance and disappearance of their spots that some close binaries are touching.
While agree with other posters in this thread about the difference between laws and a theory, I'm guessing you were trying to get at something else: practically, how much experimentation is needed to verify a theory?
I don't know, but for GR I see 2.5 reasons to keep experimenting:
GR, and even special relativity to some extent, appears to not be fully consistent with quantum mechanics (QM), another theory that is very well supported by measurements. Therefore it is natural to expect that at least one of them will need modification.
Yes, there are some theories that try to unify them, but they are much more tentative (i.e. need experimental support or disproval). Small deviations from either GR or QM would be a Big Clue, but of course it's not automatic that Gravity Probe B in particular was worth $700M.
Gravitational waves are billed as another as yet unverified prediction of GR, but
A Nobel prize was given years ago for their detection in a pulsar system.
Far more importantly, they are astronomically interesting more or less independently of GR.
Whether Gravity Probe B was worth $700M, assuming they don't get lucky and find something, depends on few things:
Do any of the hot theories really care about frame dragging, or do they all agree on it anyway? I have not seen a lot of controversy about this.
Was the time (4 decades?!) and money really needed when 2 separate experiments have found it in the last 2 years? Clifford Will's complaint that the Italian result might be thrown off by the Earth's inhomogeneities falls flat when the number is so close to the Lense-Thirring prediction. That'd be quite a coincidence (but not earth shatteringly so). When the discrepancy is only 0.1 standard deviations, it's more likely that the uncertainties were overestimated than underestimated. Of course the Italians knew what number to shoot for, but if you're going to examine motivations you may well consider that Will likes testing GR to high accuracy, so of course he'd like to see Gravity Probe B go on to measure frame dragging to within 1%. And on that he's right - it's up there now, so we might as well see what it has to say.
I think we all think we "just barely missed" but since they *don't actually tell you how many you got wrong* there's no way to actually know.
Yes, I should admit that I was going by my (usually pretty good) hunch of what I got wrong and right. But they *might* (it was several years ago) have given us the answers while we were waiting for the marking to be done. On the other hand we were lucky enough to have Alex there to entertain us.
Anyone else wanna see Ben Stein compete in Celebrity Jeopardy! (against smarter and faster than average celebrities), and Alex guest host a Win Ben Stein's Money?
The best tip I can give is simply to READ.
Over a lifetime, yeah, but maybe not right before a tryout or game. Some of the questions are about very recent music, movies, or TV shows, and the champs astound me with their ability to get them. How do they have time for that much nongeeky stuff along with the geeky stuff? Especially when the question's about a plot detail in the middle of a movie or TV season - you'd think you'd have to watch it in real time instead of speed reading that stuff.
I (a Canadian) tried out for Jeopardy! a few years ago and just barely missed the 35/50 needed on the test they gave to go on to a fake game. Of course I blame it on missing a couple of questions like who was vice president in 1882, and who was first lady in 1920. Yes, I'm bitter, but I was bitter before, so you don't need to lecture me about how Jeopardy! is an American show, and therefore American oriented.
Being Bostonian you should already know American history fairly well, but my point is that it is worth memorizing a few lists, like
vice presidents
1st ladies
1st ladies' pets (seriously!)
supreme court judges, past and present
losing presidential candidates
is essential.
There are other possible lists, like national capitals, but personally I'd rely on general knowledge for those, while the above lists come under "things I couldn't bring myself to bother studying even when I knew I had a Jeopardy! tryout coming up". That was a mistake. I know most people advise that you can't really study for Jeopardy!, because it covers such a broad range of topics; you just have to know it from lifetime experience. That's mostly true, and most questions are not studiable. A few are though, since the above lists are a relatively small body of knowledge, and it can make a big difference if you hit one on a daily double. I know from watching that most of the 5-time champs know this stuff cold.
Other "quantum numbers", like baryon number, "color" (i.e. strong charge), and helicity (if well defined) are also flipped. If one of these numbers is 0 for a particle, it is also 0 for the antiparticle (-0 = 0). The photon is even its own antiparticle. At this point, I'd like to remind you that you are surrounded by photons, so you can start worrying while I expound upon the neutron.
The neutron is made of 2 down (electric charge -1/3 each) quarks and an up (electric charge +2/3), and has a magnetic dipole moment. The antineutron is made of antiquarks and has the opposite magnetic dipole moment.
Being bombarded by photons and wondering why you still exist? In a matter-antimatter annihilation, the energy and momentum are carried away by two photons. So in a photon-antiphoton annihilation, 2 photons go in, and 2 (indistinguishable) photons come out. Yawn. Not that photons interact with each other anyway.
LISP and Perl can handle both paradigms. Python and Ruby try (and succeed as well as possible, I guess), to bring OOP to scripting. They certainly have their fans.
If the right objects are already made and easy to use, then OOP is great for programming. If you have to worry about designing an object hierarchy when what you really want is a result, then it's a chore.
neither article explains why these planets are signs of Earthlike planets
I think they're just pleased that they've found a couple of sub-Saturn sized planets. i.e. planets at least as big as Jupiter were first and easiest to be found, then came Saturns, and now, as they hoped, the trend has continued to Neptunes, buoying their aspirations to find even smaller planets.
...and actually have some reasonably easy way of auditing the security of extensions before they get a chance to screw things up.
I thought of writing an extension that would be a better extension installer, but only got (and that, only conceptually) as far as a naive cut of does not use chrome (safe) vs. uses chrome (the unsafe majority that Firefox warns you about anyway).
It would be nice if whoever runs this Firefox 0.9 extension registry audits and approves all listed extensions (Is that the point? It wasn't crystal clear.), but I suspect they're unwilling to take the legal liability. Meanwhile galeon still has the edge...
Use emacs. Type normally, then M-b M-u, and presto, THEN. Or just repeatedly hit M-/ and watch it read your mind.
Disabling caps lock is well worth it before you spend a few minutes trying to unlock the screen with your password without realizing that caps lock is on.
Ultimately in the end, we will lose performance because they are adding overhead to general processing.
Point taken, but if NX cuts down on the worm/virus/virus notice email we get because of infected Windoze systems, it'll be a performance boost for us UNIX users.
Rather than call it a "network of telescopes" or an array, call it by it's name, an interferometer.
IARA*, and "array", or "interferometric array", are the most commonly used terms, although interferometer is also used. The difference is that an interferometer can be just 2 antennas, while an array implies more than that, i.e. an interferometer that is an array is an array of interferometers. The more antennas, the better, because high quality imaging requires reasonable sampling of the area that the simulated "big dish" would cover.
"Network of telescopes" is also OK, but not commonly used...except when writing an article for the general public.
I Am a Radio Astronomer (working with the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey), but given the topic you could be forgiven for thinking that was "I Am an Array".;-)
Am I correct in translating to "The universe is at least 156 billion light years across?"
Perfectly! What we can see of the universe is pretty uniform, suggesting that it just keeps on going in the same way presumably forever in all spatial directions, making it infinite. On the other hand, if there is a change or boundary outside the range of what we can see, how would we know?
First, although one small spread spectrum transmitter (SSST) doesn't jam the whole spectrum the way a traditional transmitter (TT) jams a small part of the spectrum, it does add noise. Many SSSTs look like a lot of noise. Most radio astronomical signals are wide band, i.e. SSSTish. We can handle TTs (if they're following the regulations) by simply not observing at their frequencies, but SSSTs are noise. Noise is very, very, bad.
You could argue that the radio spectrum is so commerically valuable that opening it up would be worth paying for large radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon. But while space telescopes have their advantages, they are expensive and hard to maintain and upgrade.
If you don't care about radio astronomy, you should. Not only are many astronomical phenomena only bright in radio (pulsars are a well known example), but most radio wavelengths are unaffected by dust and some spectral lines in particular are ideal for mapping gas, making radio astronomy the best way (IMBO) of studying the whole galaxy. There are also good reasons to expect that radio observations are the best way of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence.
Secondly, where is this big demand for SSSTs coming from? It's not free speech - there are more blogs and internet "radio" stations than you can shake a stick at, and they reach the whole world instead of just annoying their uninterested neighbors. WiFi seems more likely, but there are already bands for that, and as other posts have pointed out, it also benefits from regulation.
In late January I flew from Kelowna, B.C. to L.A. thru Seattle, and I'm pretty sure my suitcase didn't have a lock when I started. But when I got to the hotel I noticed it had a little one that I had to get a hotel maintenance guy to snap off with a boltcutter. Somebody, most likely in TSA either
removed the lock from someone else's suitcase to inspect it, then when done mistakenly put the lock on mine (a fairly generic black one), or
for some reason thought my suitcase needed a lock (to prevent further checks?), and supplied one mistakenly assuming it would be recovered at LAX.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I edited /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf with jed or emacs!
It wasn't hard at all (Did you try "man wpa_supplicant"?), but what you might be having trouble with is the driver for the wireless card. I had to use ndiswrapper to load the Broadcom driver from my Windoze XP partition. That requirement might(? I don't know) have gone away with the latest Linux kernel. Finding the driver directory on the Windoze partition, and especially the correct driver in that directory, was a bit of a pain, solved by using trial and error.
But all in all it's not much harder than properly setting up a wireless router.
??? I've been using WPA2 with Ubuntu for most of a year.
That's right. Canadians are also planning a Arecibo-scale steerable radio telescope, http://www.drao.nrc.ca/science/ska/, as a prototype element for the Square Kilometer Array, http://www.skatelescope.org/.
The article was horrible, and may have been referring to plans for the next generation ground based optical telescope after the Thirty Meter Telescope. It is nicknamed OWL now, for "Overwhelmingly Large Telescope", and don't expect to see it for at least another 30 years.
Radio waves are light, not sound. They just have a longer wavelength than the light we see with our eyes. Just because we listen to audio signals on radios doesn't mean that radio waves are sound.
Even if EEGs were high frequency signals, people measuring lab signals could fall back on building a Faraday cage around the whole room to block outside interference...like say, anything from space.
I don't know about this computer, but while I was doing my Ph.D. in astronomy a prof (John Lester) had a computer named stella. It didn't stand out among a bunch of other computers named after constellations or famous dead astrophysicists, until one of his students told me that his other computer was named "stanley".
Only because there are more optical telescopes than radio ones. Both radio and optical professional telescopes tend to be far away from large population centers to avoid manmade interference (streetlights, etc., for optical, a wide variety of electronics for radio). LOFAR, being in a heavily populated area, will have to deal with a lot of interference, and radio astronomers around the world are watching to see how well they can cope.
As for the economics of location, there's the cost of building it in a place and then there's how much money you can get to build it there.
About 4 light years. But most stars aren't quite as isolated as the Sun.
So our Sun, and most stars, aren't likely to collide with another star, but some stars are. We can even tell from the appearance and disappearance of their spots that some close binaries are touching.
That would most likely depend on how much selenium is in your soil.
I don't know, but for GR I see 2.5 reasons to keep experimenting:
- GR, and even special relativity to some extent, appears to not be fully consistent with quantum mechanics (QM), another theory that is very well supported by measurements. Therefore it is natural to expect that at least one of them will need modification.
- Yes, there are some theories that try to unify them, but they are much more tentative (i.e. need experimental support or disproval). Small deviations from either GR or QM would be a Big Clue, but of course it's not automatic that Gravity Probe B in particular was worth $700M.
- Gravitational waves are billed as another as yet unverified prediction of GR, but
- A Nobel prize was given years ago for their detection in a pulsar system.
- Far more importantly, they are astronomically interesting more or less independently of GR.
Whether Gravity Probe B was worth $700M, assuming they don't get lucky and find something, depends on few things:Yes, I should admit that I was going by my (usually pretty good) hunch of what I got wrong and right. But they *might* (it was several years ago) have given us the answers while we were waiting for the marking to be done. On the other hand we were lucky enough to have Alex there to entertain us.
Anyone else wanna see Ben Stein compete in Celebrity Jeopardy! (against smarter and faster than average celebrities), and Alex guest host a Win Ben Stein's Money?
Over a lifetime, yeah, but maybe not right before a tryout or game. Some of the questions are about very recent music, movies, or TV shows, and the champs astound me with their ability to get them. How do they have time for that much nongeeky stuff along with the geeky stuff? Especially when the question's about a plot detail in the middle of a movie or TV season - you'd think you'd have to watch it in real time instead of speed reading that stuff.I get the feeling the firing was just an excuse to for him to get a couple of dumb SETI slags in the media.
Being Bostonian you should already know American history fairly well, but my point is that it is worth memorizing a few lists, like
- vice presidents
- 1st ladies
- 1st ladies' pets (seriously!)
- supreme court judges, past and present
- losing presidential candidates
is essential.There are other possible lists, like national capitals, but personally I'd rely on general knowledge for those, while the above lists come under "things I couldn't bring myself to bother studying even when I knew I had a Jeopardy! tryout coming up". That was a mistake. I know most people advise that you can't really study for Jeopardy!, because it covers such a broad range of topics; you just have to know it from lifetime experience. That's mostly true, and most questions are not studiable. A few are though, since the above lists are a relatively small body of knowledge, and it can make a big difference if you hit one on a daily double. I know from watching that most of the 5-time champs know this stuff cold.
Good luck!
The neutron is made of 2 down (electric charge -1/3 each) quarks and an up (electric charge +2/3), and has a magnetic dipole moment. The antineutron is made of antiquarks and has the opposite magnetic dipole moment.
Being bombarded by photons and wondering why you still exist? In a matter-antimatter annihilation, the energy and momentum are carried away by two photons. So in a photon-antiphoton annihilation, 2 photons go in, and 2 (indistinguishable) photons come out. Yawn. Not that photons interact with each other anyway.
If the right objects are already made and easy to use, then OOP is great for programming. If you have to worry about designing an object hierarchy when what you really want is a result, then it's a chore.
I think they're just pleased that they've found a couple of sub-Saturn sized planets. i.e. planets at least as big as Jupiter were first and easiest to be found, then came Saturns, and now, as they hoped, the trend has continued to Neptunes, buoying their aspirations to find even smaller planets.
I thought of writing an extension that would be a better extension installer, but only got (and that, only conceptually) as far as a naive cut of does not use chrome (safe) vs. uses chrome (the unsafe majority that Firefox warns you about anyway).
It would be nice if whoever runs this Firefox 0.9 extension registry audits and approves all listed extensions (Is that the point? It wasn't crystal clear.), but I suspect they're unwilling to take the legal liability. Meanwhile galeon still has the edge...
Disabling caps lock is well worth it before you spend a few minutes trying to unlock the screen with your password without realizing that caps lock is on.
Point taken, but if NX cuts down on the worm/virus/virus notice email we get because of infected Windoze systems, it'll be a performance boost for us UNIX users.
IARA*, and "array", or "interferometric array", are the most commonly used terms, although interferometer is also used. The difference is that an interferometer can be just 2 antennas, while an array implies more than that, i.e. an interferometer that is an array is an array of interferometers. The more antennas, the better, because high quality imaging requires reasonable sampling of the area that the simulated "big dish" would cover.
"Network of telescopes" is also OK, but not commonly used...except when writing an article for the general public.
I Am a Radio Astronomer (working with the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey), but given the topic you could be forgiven for thinking that was "I Am an Array". ;-)
Perfectly! What we can see of the universe is pretty uniform, suggesting that it just keeps on going in the same way presumably forever in all spatial directions, making it infinite. On the other hand, if there is a change or boundary outside the range of what we can see, how would we know?
You could argue that the radio spectrum is so commerically valuable that opening it up would be worth paying for large radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon. But while space telescopes have their advantages, they are expensive and hard to maintain and upgrade.
If you don't care about radio astronomy, you should. Not only are many astronomical phenomena only bright in radio (pulsars are a well known example), but most radio wavelengths are unaffected by dust and some spectral lines in particular are ideal for mapping gas, making radio astronomy the best way (IMBO) of studying the whole galaxy. There are also good reasons to expect that radio observations are the best way of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence.
Secondly, where is this big demand for SSSTs coming from? It's not free speech - there are more blogs and internet "radio" stations than you can shake a stick at, and they reach the whole world instead of just annoying their uninterested neighbors. WiFi seems more likely, but there are already bands for that, and as other posts have pointed out, it also benefits from regulation.
It seems to be
...
Star-name Letter
where letter goes from A to Z with decreasing mass, i.e. Upsilon Andromeda A, Upsilon Andromeda B,