The James Webb telescope will not be accessible by anyone - its going to be at the L2 point.
And the decision to situate the JWST at L2 was made primarily on economic grounds. With no possibility of sending a manned mission to service the telescope, you conveniently avoid any chance of having to meet the large costs which manned missions incurr.
From the economists' point of view, Hubble was a disaster in this respect: a huge amount of money was spent sending the shuttle to service the telescope (a shuttle launch costs c. $500 million).
It costs a not-insignificant amount of money to keep Hubble's support infrastructure at STScI running -- above and beyond the maintenance costs required to keep the telescope alive. This is the principal reason for the cut -- to save money.
The same economic reasons have been used before to cut space-based observatories; the International Ultraviolet Observer is one example.
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Now, be honest. How many of us had our first computer experience with MS-DOS or Windows 3.1?
Probably less than you might think. While our parents were doing boring crap such as wordprocessing on their drab IBM PC, we were hacking away on our Sinclairs, Commodores, Ataris, Amigas, Dragons, Tandys, Amstrads, Acorns, etc. Those were what the young computer geeks were using in the 1980s.
I would stick with a CRT, purely because you get more bang-per-buck (how many of us can afford a 21" LCD?). However, there is one important caveat: if you want a good picture, you must get a Trinitron CRT, rather than the normal shadow-mask tube (see here for a good overview of Trinitrons). I recently had to toss my beloved 6-year old Iiyama Trinitron, which always gave an incredibly crisp picture. The replacement, a Samsung 19" shadow-mask CRT, is rather a let down, with fuzzy fonts of the sort you describe. I'm now regretting the fact that I didn't shell out the extra $$ and get a Trinitron again.
While an LCD monitor has much to recommend it on the grounds of space saving and visual clarity, I find one arena where it is left in the dust by a CRT: game playing. When rushing around in a FPS, the picture on an LCD monitor turns into a blurry, muddy mess; on a CRT, by contrast, it remains crisp.
In an unrelated but related point (think "tea and no tea"), I find that optical mice are great for day-to-day work, but fall down during FPS play: when you figure that someone is filling your back with lead, and you need to do an instant 180 degree turn, an optical mouse simply can't handle the rate of movement. A traditional ball mouse is the only choice; however, you have to make sure its clean so that the ball doesn't jam when being rolled at high speed. A good tip to keeping your balls clean is to rest your beer on a different table to your keyboard/mouse.
The Washington Times is a tabloid owned by Reverend Moon (of the Moonies). It has zero journalistic integrity, instead merely serving as an organ by which the extreme right can pump out their propaganda.
I would like you to note the trend from 1993 to today. Please note that it wasn't until around 1993 that the most violent 1st person genre took off.
For those who are interested, the decline from c. 1993 to 2000 was due to the change of administration from Bush Snr to Clinton. Clinton put into place very effective crime-cutting measures, whose success can be seen from the data presented on the DOJ page. The fact that 1st person games took off in 1993 is, obviously, a total coincidence.
Thanks for the long, thoughtful reply -- a rather rare occurence on Slashdot, unfortunately. For the record, my training is in astrophysics, so I use math on a daily basis but math is not my 'thing'.
It's Friday night, so I'm only going to write a brief response before knocking off for the weekend. Continuing with your aposite square root analogy, my main point is this: sure, we should be using a calculator to do square roots; but only once we are familiar with what a square root is.
A few years back, I was teaching physics out in a small village in Ghana (Africa). Surprisingly for the poor rural community I was in, a number of kids had calculators. And hell, they could do square roots. But if you asked them what made 2 the square root of 4, they had not a clue. They were able to get by regarding the square root process as a black box, but they had no fundamental understanding of it.
Looking now at integration, when I ask a student why the integral of x wrt x is x^2/2, I don't want to get the answer: 'because Mathematica says so'. I want to hear something which shows at least some understanding of the process of integration. For instance, 'because the derivative of x^2/2 is x, and the fundamental theorem of calculus demonstrates that integration is the inverse operation to differentiation.'
In my day-to-day work, I certainly do use Mathematica to take the tedium out of integration and other problems. However, without Mathematica the chances are that I could still solve these problems, albeit at a much slower rate. Because of this, I feel that I have more insight into the physics of the problems I'm solving.
Returning now to the square root case, ponder this: for someone whose understanding of the square roots is limited to regarding them as black-box functions of calculators, how can they understand why the square root of a negative number causes the calculator to throw an error (assuming real math)? For them to obtain this insight, they need to learn a little more about square roots than the fact that a calculator can calculate them.
Looking up the answer to 83592 / 23 on a physical table such as a slide rule will not provide any insights into long division that punching it into a calculator will not. Also, once you learn long division in grade school that's pretty much all there is to know about it.
I was talking about math in general. If you think that basic algebra is all there is to math, then your burger-flipping job suits you well.
How is having a computer look up an integral in a database any different from looking it up yourself?
Because it is often the case that the solution to a given math problem is less important than the means used to obtain that solution. For instance, consider Zeno's paradox: to explain how Achilles can overtake the tortoise requires one to consider such concepts as infinite summations and limits. Just to assert that Achilles will overtake the tortoise offers no insight into the paradox whatsoever.
Slashdotted already?
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: -1, Funny
Fedora News appears to have upgraded to KDE 3.2. How else could their webserver become so resource-starved that it is unable to serve pages anymore?
I am, of course, joking -- I'm sure that the new release of KDE is absolutely fantastic, and I look forward to reading the article when Fedora News has recovered from the good shellacking which Slashdot users appear to be giving it at the moment.
From one of the links discussing Wolfram's use of others' work:
In the 1990's Matthew Cook served as a research assistant to Stephen Wolfram , where among other things he was directed to develop a proof showing that the Rule 110 cellular automaton is Turing-complete . Under non-disclosure until the publication of Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science, Cook nevertheless presented his proof at a Santa Fe Institute conference. Subsequently, it was stricken from the published proceedings by court order.
This really highlights what a megalomaniac Wolfram is. While he may be remembered after his death, I imagine it will be for his insufferable ego, not for his scientific achievements.
Oh, and regarding Mathematica: its use by students should be banned until they are able to outperform it in terms of mathematical sophistication. Its overuse in universities is leading to an intellectually-stunted generation.
Because you have a different ideological slant, you attack the source rather than the points made. You're the other side of the same tiresome coin.
Rubbish. If a Columbian drug baron tells me that cocaine should be supplied to children, it is perfectly germane for me to question their motives for making the assertion, irrespective of whether the assertion has merit or not.
The foam on the last space shuttle was used because it was more environmentally friendly, even though it was inferior. At least that's what I read (just put 'space shuttle foam environment' into google).
I expect you read this article in Capitalist Magazine. The title of the article, "Earth Worshippers Cause Death in Space", really brings home the high levels of dispassionate reporting and journalistic integrity enjoyed by the magazine. Truly, everything they say must be true.
The Politically correct change in chemistry results in more equipment in landfills not less!
This is almost as funny as all those dimbulbs who choose paper over plastic "to protect the enviroment" even though their paper probably used chemicals that polluted water, and the paper probably came from some asian rainforest.
Your confusing the envirnomental movement with the 'politically correct' movement demonstrates your shallow grasp of both. Your repeated use of the word 'probably' then indicates that you don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. Finally, your suggestion that paper comes from Asian rainforests demonstrates that you don't know the difference between hardwood and softwood. All in all, your stock is falling.
At a more general level, your post argues that we shouldn't try to be environmentally-conscious, lest we screw up
This demonstrates, unequivocally, that Windows is an insecure operating system, and that Bill Gates suX0ReZ.
Or rather, it would, if it occurred in the same parallel universe inhabited by the/. minority which crows every time a hole in SSH "demonstrates" that Linux is insecure and that Linus is a gay camel worrier.
2.6 Kernel was called 'Heathen Chemistry' along the core programmers before it was released.
Heathen Chemistry? Sounds like crystal meth to me. Will those pinko commie gay nazi 'free software' liberals stop at nothing in their maniacal quest to corrupt our children? Is our children safe?
Slashdot Mirror
The James Webb telescope will not be accessible by anyone - its going to be at the L2 point.
And the decision to situate the JWST at L2 was made primarily on economic grounds. With no possibility of sending a manned mission to service the telescope, you conveniently avoid any chance of having to meet the large costs which manned missions incurr.
From the economists' point of view, Hubble was a disaster in this respect: a huge amount of money was spent sending the shuttle to service the telescope (a shuttle launch costs c. $500 million).
It costs a not-insignificant amount of money to keep Hubble's support infrastructure at STScI running -- above and beyond the maintenance costs required to keep the telescope alive. This is the principal reason for the cut -- to save money.
The same economic reasons have been used before to cut space-based observatories; the International Ultraviolet Observer is one example.
Now, be honest. How many of us had our first computer experience with MS-DOS or Windows 3.1?
Probably less than you might think. While our parents were doing boring crap such as wordprocessing on their drab IBM PC, we were hacking away on our Sinclairs, Commodores, Ataris, Amigas, Dragons, Tandys, Amstrads, Acorns, etc. Those were what the young computer geeks were using in the 1980s.
Yeah, and Unix, C, C++, Perl, ftp, Java, GNU, and just about everything else was developed in the USA. Your point?
Taking one example: C++ was invented by Bjarne Stroustrup, who is Danish. You, sir, are an idiot...
...says that the first practical use of f'rubber will be in the sex aid industry. How long before we see Stepford Whores?
I would stick with a CRT, purely because you get more bang-per-buck (how many of us can afford a 21" LCD?). However, there is one important caveat: if you want a good picture, you must get a Trinitron CRT, rather than the normal shadow-mask tube (see here for a good overview of Trinitrons). I recently had to toss my beloved 6-year old Iiyama Trinitron, which always gave an incredibly crisp picture. The replacement, a Samsung 19" shadow-mask CRT, is rather a let down, with fuzzy fonts of the sort you describe. I'm now regretting the fact that I didn't shell out the extra $$ and get a Trinitron again.
While an LCD monitor has much to recommend it on the grounds of space saving and visual clarity, I find one arena where it is left in the dust by a CRT: game playing. When rushing around in a FPS, the picture on an LCD monitor turns into a blurry, muddy mess; on a CRT, by contrast, it remains crisp.
In an unrelated but related point (think "tea and no tea"), I find that optical mice are great for day-to-day work, but fall down during FPS play: when you figure that someone is filling your back with lead, and you need to do an instant 180 degree turn, an optical mouse simply can't handle the rate of movement. A traditional ball mouse is the only choice; however, you have to make sure its clean so that the ball doesn't jam when being rolled at high speed. A good tip to keeping your balls clean is to rest your beer on a different table to your keyboard/mouse.
While there is a degree of truth in your argument, let's not forget, for instance, that HTML/HTTP was invented in Europe, as was Linux.
Washington Times Op-Ed: The Richest 1 percent
The Washington Times is a tabloid owned by Reverend Moon (of the Moonies). It has zero journalistic integrity, instead merely serving as an organ by which the extreme right can pump out their propaganda.
I would like you to note the trend from 1993 to today. Please note that it wasn't until around 1993 that the most violent 1st person genre took off.
For those who are interested, the decline from c. 1993 to 2000 was due to the change of administration from Bush Snr to Clinton. Clinton put into place very effective crime-cutting measures, whose success can be seen from the data presented on the DOJ page. The fact that 1st person games took off in 1993 is, obviously, a total coincidence.
Thanks for the long, thoughtful reply -- a rather rare occurence on Slashdot, unfortunately. For the record, my training is in astrophysics, so I use math on a daily basis but math is not my 'thing'.
It's Friday night, so I'm only going to write a brief response before knocking off for the weekend. Continuing with your aposite square root analogy, my main point is this: sure, we should be using a calculator to do square roots; but only once we are familiar with what a square root is.
A few years back, I was teaching physics out in a small village in Ghana (Africa). Surprisingly for the poor rural community I was in, a number of kids had calculators. And hell, they could do square roots. But if you asked them what made 2 the square root of 4, they had not a clue. They were able to get by regarding the square root process as a black box, but they had no fundamental understanding of it.
Looking now at integration, when I ask a student why the integral of x wrt x is x^2/2, I don't want to get the answer: 'because Mathematica says so'. I want to hear something which shows at least some understanding of the process of integration. For instance, 'because the derivative of x^2/2 is x, and the fundamental theorem of calculus demonstrates that integration is the inverse operation to differentiation.'
In my day-to-day work, I certainly do use Mathematica to take the tedium out of integration and other problems. However, without Mathematica the chances are that I could still solve these problems, albeit at a much slower rate. Because of this, I feel that I have more insight into the physics of the problems I'm solving.
Returning now to the square root case, ponder this: for someone whose understanding of the square roots is limited to regarding them as black-box functions of calculators, how can they understand why the square root of a negative number causes the calculator to throw an error (assuming real math)? For them to obtain this insight, they need to learn a little more about square roots than the fact that a calculator can calculate them.
You mean you.... erm.... welcome our new photo/GPS overlords?
Mathematica is a tool, the results you get out are only as useful as your understanding of them.
Exactly. And my point is this: too much reliance on Mathematica leads to a diminished understanding of the results it produces.
Looking up the answer to 83592 / 23 on a physical table such as a slide rule will not provide any insights into long division that punching it into a calculator will not. Also, once you learn long division in grade school that's pretty much all there is to know about it.
I was talking about math in general. If you think that basic algebra is all there is to math, then your burger-flipping job suits you well.
How is having a computer look up an integral in a database any different from looking it up yourself?
Because it is often the case that the solution to a given math problem is less important than the means used to obtain that solution. For instance, consider Zeno's paradox: to explain how Achilles can overtake the tortoise requires one to consider such concepts as infinite summations and limits. Just to assert that Achilles will overtake the tortoise offers no insight into the paradox whatsoever.
Fedora News appears to have upgraded to KDE 3.2. How else could their webserver become so resource-starved that it is unable to serve pages anymore?
I am, of course, joking -- I'm sure that the new release of KDE is absolutely fantastic, and I look forward to reading the article when Fedora News has recovered from the good shellacking which Slashdot users appear to be giving it at the moment.
Wolfram = German for tungsten
Hence 'W' is the symbol for the element tungsten.
From one of the links discussing Wolfram's use of others' work:
This really highlights what a megalomaniac Wolfram is. While he may be remembered after his death, I imagine it will be for his insufferable ego, not for his scientific achievements.
Oh, and regarding Mathematica: its use by students should be banned until they are able to outperform it in terms of mathematical sophistication. Its overuse in universities is leading to an intellectually-stunted generation.
Constructing a straw man and attacking it hardly makes you look any better.
And confusing a straw man with an analogy hardly makes you look any more justified in your original accusation.
Because you have a different ideological slant, you attack the source rather than the points made. You're the other side of the same tiresome coin.
Rubbish. If a Columbian drug baron tells me that cocaine should be supplied to children, it is perfectly germane for me to question their motives for making the assertion, irrespective of whether the assertion has merit or not.
The foam on the last space shuttle was used because it was more environmentally friendly, even though it was inferior. At least that's what I read (just put 'space shuttle foam environment' into google).
I expect you read this article in Capitalist Magazine. The title of the article, "Earth Worshippers Cause Death in Space", really brings home the high levels of dispassionate reporting and journalistic integrity enjoyed by the magazine. Truly, everything they say must be true.
The Politically correct change in chemistry results in more equipment in landfills not less!
This is almost as funny as all those dimbulbs who choose paper over plastic "to protect the enviroment" even though their paper probably used chemicals that polluted water, and the paper probably came from some asian rainforest.
Your confusing the envirnomental movement with the 'politically correct' movement demonstrates your shallow grasp of both. Your repeated use of the word 'probably' then indicates that you don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. Finally, your suggestion that paper comes from Asian rainforests demonstrates that you don't know the difference between hardwood and softwood. All in all, your stock is falling.
At a more general level, your post argues that we shouldn't try to be environmentally-conscious, lest we screw up
If you don't like Linux or SSH, go back to windows and use telnet.
I was joking. You really are very stupid. As are the idiots who moderated my post as "troll".
This demonstrates, unequivocally, that Windows is an insecure operating system, and that Bill Gates suX0ReZ.
Or rather, it would, if it occurred in the same parallel universe inhabited by the /. minority which crows every time a hole in SSH "demonstrates" that Linux is insecure and that Linus is a gay camel worrier.
2.6 Kernel was called 'Heathen Chemistry' along the core programmers before it was released.
Heathen Chemistry? Sounds like crystal meth to me. Will those pinko commie gay nazi 'free software' liberals stop at nothing in their maniacal quest to corrupt our children? Is our children safe?