> None. All of this is from spammers using zombies forging yahoo.com or hotmail.com domains. Which, incidentally,.mail will probably not solve.
No, because that's not its job..mail is meant to be used in conjunction with a spam filter; all it provides is a way of bulk whitelisting. Any competent spam filter will flag up forged yahoo and hotmail addresses.
Did HRI get used much? You bet... at least after the PSPCs were turned off when they ran out of gas! There was a long period when the HRI was the only thing you could use, and in spite of its low sensitivity and complete lack of any spectral capability it did do some good stuff.
There really isn't much difference between the Chandra ACIS and the HRC in terms of resolution -- the ACIS pixels only slightly undersample the PSF. Which is why nobody much uses the HRC (-:
It is. Anyone who hasn't seen the movies of stars orbiting around the (presumed) black hole (3 million solar masses in a tiny volume) at the centre of our own galaxy should go here or here
right now.
The ROSAT HRI was nothing like as bad as 50 arcsec -- more like 5, depending on what exactly you're measuring (FWHM? 50% enclosed energy? etc). The PSPC (the other main imaging instrument on ROSAT, for those of you who aren't keeping up) was a lot worse than that, of course. Chandra is about 4 times more sensitive in the ROSAT band, 0.1-2.4 keV, than the HRI was, in terms of count rates from a soft source, and a little bit more sensitive than the PSPC. XMM (if you measure the raw count rate from all cameras) is about 10 times more sensitive than the PSPC, so if you want to compare XMM to the ROSAT HRI your `two orders of magnitude' is only about half an order of magnitude out. For energies harder than 2.4 keV and less than ~ 8 keV both Chandra and XMM are infinitely more sensitive than ROSAT, so the comparison is hardly fair (-:.
As someone's already pointed out, Hewish did not take the credit; everybody knows who did what parts of the work. The nobel prize was for contributions to radio astronomy, including pulsars. Bell is on record as saying she does not think she should have shared in the prize. Nothing to see here, move along...
You do know that the Intel compiler produces code that's about a similar amount faster on 32-bit Athlons, too?
I tried it. Athlons and P4s both get a boost from the Intel compiler. The fractional increase is marginally more for the P4s in the applications I tested (scientific computing with lots of numerical integration) but nothing to write home about.
This is probably all a bit irrelevant, since 32-bit Athlons aren't worth buying any more; I agree the lack of a native 64-bit compiler is a stumbling block.
That's fine as long as all the other machines sitting on the same physical network as the wireless access point are secure. If they're not, someone breaking into your network through your unsecured access point may find more interesting things to do than read your e-mail...
Nothing to do with exhibiting characteristics of a liquid: the defining feature of a plasma is that it's hot enough to be substantially ionized (i.e. a significant fraction of the electrons are freed from their parent atoms).
1) dvips has been around for years. I've never seen a printer that could handle DVI directly, and basically all my output for the last decade has been in TeX format. Publishers who want PostScript don't need to know what was used to generate it.
2) No sign of TeX dying out in academic publishing: and no likelihood that it will while it remains the standard for math typesetting.
You're right that VLBI is not what's wanted in this case -- extra resolution is not needed -- but the original poster was right that connecting large numbers of small telescopes together would give you an increase in sensitivity. It just wouldn't be VLBI.
Having said that, the way that communications with Pioneer work isn't at all adaptable to this sort of approach, as I understand it.
So, choose your tape type and format with care, and store your tapes carefully.
I can (and routinely do) still read DAT tapes that I wrote in the early 90s on the DDS-4 DAT drive I bought a couple of months ago. I know people who are still able to read data from half-inch tapes from the mid-80s... because they treated those tapes with care in the first place.
If you read the document carefully, you'll see that he doesn't advocate complete deregulation, and that radio astronomy is explicitly mentioned as a service that needs protecting.
As extremely broad-band radio astronomy receivers (think GHz rather than tens of MHz) are on the way (e.g. the plans for the EVLA) radio astronomers are going to have to abandon the idea of completely RFI-free bands (already a myth at 1.4 GHz and below) and concentrate on ways of automatically detecting and removing it instead. Of course, large numbers of small, frequency-agile transmitters are pretty much the worst nightmare in this sort of scenario...
Whether or not it would be a better use of time, you can't use a general-purpose radio telescope for this sort of work. The best approach is a network of small optical telescopes like those run by Spacewatch. Since the data reduction process there is pretty straightforward, I doubt there'd be a need for an @home project.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because that's not its job. .mail is meant to be used in conjunction with a spam filter; all it provides is a way of bulk whitelisting. Any competent spam filter will flag up forged yahoo and hotmail addresses.
There are backports of module-init-tools to stable at backports .
There really isn't much difference between the Chandra ACIS and the HRC in terms of resolution -- the ACIS pixels only slightly undersample the PSF. Which is why nobody much uses the HRC (-:
It is. Anyone who hasn't seen the movies of stars orbiting around the (presumed) black hole (3 million solar masses in a tiny volume) at the centre of our own galaxy should go here or here right now.
The ROSAT HRI was nothing like as bad as 50 arcsec -- more like 5, depending on what exactly you're measuring (FWHM? 50% enclosed energy? etc). The PSPC (the other main imaging instrument on ROSAT, for those of you who aren't keeping up) was a lot worse than that, of course. Chandra is about 4 times more sensitive in the ROSAT band, 0.1-2.4 keV, than the HRI was, in terms of count rates from a soft source, and a little bit more sensitive than the PSPC. XMM (if you measure the raw count rate from all cameras) is about 10 times more sensitive than the PSPC, so if you want to compare XMM to the ROSAT HRI your `two orders of magnitude' is only about half an order of magnitude out. For energies harder than 2.4 keV and less than ~ 8 keV both Chandra and XMM are infinitely more sensitive than ROSAT, so the comparison is hardly fair (-:.
As someone's already pointed out, Hewish did not take the credit; everybody knows who did what parts of the work. The nobel prize was for contributions to radio astronomy, including pulsars. Bell is on record as saying she does not think she should have shared in the prize. Nothing to see here, move along...
It's a press release; they're often misleading, and sometimes downright untrue.
(While on the subject, this is being published in Science, not Nature as the front page says: and you can read the paper here.)
You do know that the Intel compiler produces code that's about a similar amount faster on 32-bit Athlons, too? I tried it. Athlons and P4s both get a boost from the Intel compiler. The fractional increase is marginally more for the P4s in the applications I tested (scientific computing with lots of numerical integration) but nothing to write home about. This is probably all a bit irrelevant, since 32-bit Athlons aren't worth buying any more; I agree the lack of a native 64-bit compiler is a stumbling block.
That's fine as long as all the other machines sitting on the same physical network as the wireless access point are secure. If they're not, someone breaking into your network through your unsecured access point may find more interesting things to do than read your e-mail...
Correct, as anyone who'd actually read the article would have noticed.
Nothing to do with exhibiting characteristics of a liquid: the defining feature of a plasma is that it's hot enough to be substantially ionized (i.e. a significant fraction of the electrons are freed from their parent atoms).
I sure hope your box isn't on a network of any kind...
1) dvips has been around for years. I've never seen a printer that could handle DVI directly, and basically all my output for the last decade has been in TeX format. Publishers who want PostScript don't need to know what was used to generate it.
2) No sign of TeX dying out in academic publishing: and no likelihood that it will while it remains the standard for math typesetting.
A pedant writes: pent- is from the Greek, not the Latin, so it would be Hexium, not Sexium. Doesn't sound a whole lot better, I admit...
Having said that, the way that communications with Pioneer work isn't at all adaptable to this sort of approach, as I understand it.
So, choose your tape type and format with care, and store your tapes carefully. I can (and routinely do) still read DAT tapes that I wrote in the early 90s on the DDS-4 DAT drive I bought a couple of months ago. I know people who are still able to read data from half-inch tapes from the mid-80s... because they treated those tapes with care in the first place.
It was written in Latin, I suspect.Old English wouldn't have been much use to the French-speaking Conqueror and his henchment.
Isn't Park Street supposed to be being Wi-fied by the council already? Or have I made that up?
As extremely broad-band radio astronomy receivers (think GHz rather than tens of MHz) are on the way (e.g. the plans for the EVLA) radio astronomers are going to have to abandon the idea of completely RFI-free bands (already a myth at 1.4 GHz and below) and concentrate on ways of automatically detecting and removing it instead. Of course, large numbers of small, frequency-agile transmitters are pretty much the worst nightmare in this sort of scenario...
Whether or not it would be a better use of time, you can't use a general-purpose radio telescope for this sort of work. The best approach is a network of small optical telescopes like those run by Spacewatch. Since the data reduction process there is pretty straightforward, I doubt there'd be a need for an @home project.