Maybe you're thinking about the far side of the moon when the moon is full? A new moon places Luna in-between the Sun and Earth--so you have the sun's glare on one side, and the glare of Earthshine on the other.
In any case, each side of the moon experiences roughly 14 and a half days of sunlight - so there's no benefit in placing a visible-light observatory on the far side.
Ok, but you could say the same thing about Earth communications which are handled by satellites. Dumb communication satellites are cheap even around the moon.
The primary difference, as far as I know, is that we have backup satellites for when an Earth-based satellite dies. I don't know that that's true for Lunar-orbit satellites.
BTW. I thought the idea of having a telescope on the far side of the moon was to avoid the radio interference from the Earth and not the sunlight.
True. I guess it depends to some extent on what sort of observing equipment you'd have in place on the observatory.
Bah, no need for that. As the character S.R. Hadden from Contact said, "First rule of government contracts: why buy one, when you can get two for twice the price?"
No, I'm not kidding - because by introducing a relay satellite, you've significantly increased the chance of a very drastic failure. Bad enough the telescope itself might fail; now you risk a failure of the satellite, which renders a perfectly-operational lunar telescope perfectly useless.
Additionally, there's no benefit to having a telescope on the far side of the moon. The far and near sides of the moon both receive sunlight - the difference is that the far side never faces Earth.
I don't think "we don't have the technology" is a good argument against Luna or Mars. We "didn't have the technology" at the beginning of the space race, either - yet, less than twenty years later, we had a man on the moon. Why? Because we created the technology as we needed to.
What good is a four-trillion-dollar gross domestic product if we can't direct it toward something visionary once per generation?
How do you propose we stay in communication with a telescope on the opposite side of the moon?:) That said, I agree that a telescope facility on the moon's surface would be a tremendous boon to science. I wonder, though, if it wouldn't be just as economical to place a space telescope in a LaGrange orbit.
When was the last time the ISPs hiked up the rates explicitly because of the E-mail traffic they had to filter and handle? Call me old-fashioned, but I'd settle for the lower volume of spam that will result from this action The time I would save is worth more than a 50 coupon.
Its always entertaining to see the anti-lawyer anti-corporate crowd actually agree with something that a lawyer heavy super corporation does.
I'm not anti-lawyer or anti-corporate. I'm just pro-common sense, which means I oppose the actions of "lawyer-heavy super corporations" on a fairly regular basis. However, even "lawyer-heavy super corporations" do the right thing more often than not.
I don't care - it's not the ISP's place to say how I used my bandwidth.
Perhaps not. But it is their place to provide the bandwidth as they see fit - and, by your logic, it's not your place to tell them how to provide it. If you don't like how your provider offers service, find another provider.
It's not really the software itself in any of these cases, so much as it's the physiological or psychological reactions of the people who played them. Really, is the software responsible for someone playing a game for twenty hours straight? Or for a girl getting so depressed about not being able to beat a game that she hangs herself?
Now there is a lot of evedence that there was a large flood on earth and some sciencts don't want to look at it.
If you're talking about the hypothesized flood through the Dardanelles that may have created the Black Sea, that's all fine and well. If you're talking about taking the Biblical account of the flood literally, that's just foolish. I don't know about you, but I would rather not base scientific research solely on plagiarized copies of Mesopotamian myths.
The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law.
I had my house burgled three times in eighteen months before I had an alarm installed, which was pretty stupid in retrospect. But given the frequency of break-ins I've had to deal with, I'd be happy with a 50% success rate.
I suppose they think they can include the $20 my wife's employer paid me in cash the other day for fixing one of their computers (it was a pretty minor problem). Granted, $20 doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things - but it is still possible, using greenbacks, to make one's financial transactions very hard to track. Consider people who receive paychecks instead of direct deposit, cash their checks at the grocery store, and keep their cash on-hand. How well do you track that?
That's kinda sad. I've written a lot of code, and I've never felt the need to use profanity (no matter how frustrated I might have been). Programs should be written as professionally as any other document--there's room for humor, but words like fuck really shouldn't have a place in them, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
It benefits the site owner by having reduced bandwidth costs and it also benefits Slashdot as we can read the articles.
At least, for all 20 Slashdotters who do read the articles. . . :)
Maybe you're thinking about the far side of the moon when the moon is full? A new moon places Luna in-between the Sun and Earth--so you have the sun's glare on one side, and the glare of Earthshine on the other.
In any case, each side of the moon experiences roughly 14 and a half days of sunlight - so there's no benefit in placing a visible-light observatory on the far side.
Ok, but you could say the same thing about Earth communications which are handled by satellites. Dumb communication satellites are cheap even around the moon.
The primary difference, as far as I know, is that we have backup satellites for when an Earth-based satellite dies. I don't know that that's true for Lunar-orbit satellites.
BTW. I thought the idea of having a telescope on the far side of the moon was to avoid the radio interference from the Earth and not the sunlight.
True. I guess it depends to some extent on what sort of observing equipment you'd have in place on the observatory.
Bah, no need for that. As the character S.R. Hadden from Contact said, "First rule of government contracts: why buy one, when you can get two for twice the price?"
. . .or Janet Jackson's other boob. :)
No, I'm not kidding - because by introducing a relay satellite, you've significantly increased the chance of a very drastic failure. Bad enough the telescope itself might fail; now you risk a failure of the satellite, which renders a perfectly-operational lunar telescope perfectly useless.
Additionally, there's no benefit to having a telescope on the far side of the moon. The far and near sides of the moon both receive sunlight - the difference is that the far side never faces Earth.
I don't think "we don't have the technology" is a good argument against Luna or Mars. We "didn't have the technology" at the beginning of the space race, either - yet, less than twenty years later, we had a man on the moon. Why? Because we created the technology as we needed to.
What good is a four-trillion-dollar gross domestic product if we can't direct it toward something visionary once per generation?
Kick ass telescope on the far side of the moon.
How do you propose we stay in communication with a telescope on the opposite side of the moon? :) That said, I agree that a telescope facility on the moon's surface would be a tremendous boon to science. I wonder, though, if it wouldn't be just as economical to place a space telescope in a LaGrange orbit.
When was the last time the ISPs hiked up the rates explicitly because of the E-mail traffic they had to filter and handle? Call me old-fashioned, but I'd settle for the lower volume of spam that will result from this action The time I would save is worth more than a 50 coupon.
Its always entertaining to see the anti-lawyer anti-corporate crowd actually agree with something that a lawyer heavy super corporation does.
I'm not anti-lawyer or anti-corporate. I'm just pro-common sense, which means I oppose the actions of "lawyer-heavy super corporations" on a fairly regular basis. However, even "lawyer-heavy super corporations" do the right thing more often than not.
I don't care - it's not the ISP's place to say how I used my bandwidth.
Perhaps not. But it is their place to provide the bandwidth as they see fit - and, by your logic, it's not your place to tell them how to provide it. If you don't like how your provider offers service, find another provider.
I suggest R'ing T F'ing A.
Direct quote from the article:
Comcast says that it is aware of the problem, is alerting customers who were hacked and helping them secure their computers.
That wasn't obligatory. It wasn't really even funny.
It's not really the software itself in any of these cases, so much as it's the physiological or psychological reactions of the people who played them. Really, is the software responsible for someone playing a game for twenty hours straight? Or for a girl getting so depressed about not being able to beat a game that she hangs herself?
National Geographic has an article about the hypothesis on their website. I heard about it on NPR, originally.
Now there is a lot of evedence that there was a large flood on earth and some sciencts don't want to look at it.
If you're talking about the hypothesized flood through the Dardanelles that may have created the Black Sea, that's all fine and well. If you're talking about taking the Biblical account of the flood literally, that's just foolish. I don't know about you, but I would rather not base scientific research solely on plagiarized copies of Mesopotamian myths.
I used all my modpoints this morning, or I would have given you +1, Prophetic.
Oh, wait. . .
EA did not create their MMORPG so that people could study it. EA created their MMORPG so that they could make money.
The question is about whether a State has the authority to require a State ID to be given on demand. The State DOES have that authority, because it isn't expressly forbidden by Federal law.
Bullshit.Good call. Alas, if only Slashdot had a "-1, Plagiarism" moderation. . .
I had my house burgled three times in eighteen months before I had an alarm installed, which was pretty stupid in retrospect. But given the frequency of break-ins I've had to deal with, I'd be happy with a 50% success rate.
Too predictable. The spammers would just send each recipient two messages. Try this:
Oh, and double-check your code next time. That wouldn't compile in any C++ compiler I know about. :)
I suppose they think they can include the $20 my wife's employer paid me in cash the other day for fixing one of their computers (it was a pretty minor problem). Granted, $20 doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things - but it is still possible, using greenbacks, to make one's financial transactions very hard to track. Consider people who receive paychecks instead of direct deposit, cash their checks at the grocery store, and keep their cash on-hand. How well do you track that?
That's kinda sad. I've written a lot of code, and I've never felt the need to use profanity (no matter how frustrated I might have been). Programs should be written as professionally as any other document--there's room for humor, but words like fuck really shouldn't have a place in them, IMO.
+1, Rimshot! :)