Oh, too bad, I thought maybe I had stumbled across an idea that would've helped astronomy. I would've called it the "Vari-Focus Telescope". Clearly impractical for now, especially with our current fiscal problems.
Though it would be kinda neat if you could focus say from 1500-2000 light years. That way all the junk (planets, satellites, aliens) in front and all the stuff behind (galaxies, heaven, god) would be pleasantly blurry.
More seriously, I'm surprised they don't have some autofocusing mechanism like my cheap pocket camera does. I guess they can't project a little pattern onto the scene like some cameras used to do (it would require quite a light source and you'd be waiting a looooonnnnng time.). Even that would work better than the sonar focusing system the Polaroid SX-70 camera I suppose.
If people really like using Siri, then what's to keep Apple from using it as the front end for their own (or another party's) search engine?
It's all about who's closest to the user. Just as Microsoft feared their OS dominance would mean nothing if everyone spent their time in browsers, if search engines are pushed "beneath" these attractive voice interfaces, Google could be made irrelevant (on Apple devices anyway, especially because Apple will never let another company release something like Siri on iOS or Mac OS X).
Sorry, perhaps I phrased that wrong (Again I'm not a transportation expert or lawyer). I'd fully expect these big companies to pay for their errors in design or construction but in order to keep these costs predictable (otherwise they would have no idea whether or not it would be practical to enter this field) they should pay into an insurance fund with set damages etc.
If it doesn't make sense (if every tenth drive ends in a fatality) then obviously these companies should go bankrupt/not make cars. However, if one (or a very few) fatalities result in lawsuits costing hundreds of millions of dollars then maybe you've killed a technology that, as a whole, was beneficial to society.
(Of course the cynic might say, well that's what you might intend but it'll end up a bailout!)
I couldn't tell (from my incredibly brief skimming of the article) whether this included non-visible spectrum telescopes, notably radio telescopes.
Although it seems that radio telescopes are far too specialized and technical (expensive) a resource to be shared with the public, it would be neat to control one of those "dishes". I once worked on a S.E.T.I. project using the 84 ft. telescope at Harvard, MA (owned by Harvard U.) and I wouldn't mind more time on it. Of course probably the only thing we "amateurs" would do with it is look (or rather listen) for E.T. There might be someone out there who "knows" that the real interstellar communications frequency isn't around the "water hole" but around the methane line because that's what everybody who's anybody breathes!
If there are any (very high) ground based far-infrared telescopes available perhaps the sophisticated amateur could look for Dyson spheres (although it might to hard to tell them apart from the super cool brown dwarfs they've been finding).
Are there any provisions for safety mechanisms? Like, aren't there a few (okay maybe just one, the Moon) celestial objects that are so bright it could damage the sensors on a moderately large telescope?
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned, what's to keep a user from "thrashing" the telescope from side to side possibly damaging/wearing it out? On the other hand, are these agile enough to track objects in LEO? Can the users "program" it to do so (have a track a moving object as opposed to a spot in the sky?).
I assume none of them have that fancy anti-atmospheric aberration green laser attached to the scope, THEN a remote user could do some real damage to some passing planes/satellites!
I'm all for autonomous vehicles but I think before it goes forward (ha ha) shouldn't there be some sort of legal framework in place? I mean the first fatal accident that can be even possibly attributed to an autonomous vehicle could very well kill the industry for a while at least. (I'm reminded of how the fatal crash of one of Buckminster Fuller's super efficient teardrop shaped 3 wheeled vehicles killed that concept).
How about for all "certified" (through rigorous federal testing) vehicles, there be "no-fault" collision insurance (or limits on damages). Unfortunately I'm neither a transportation expert nor lawyer so I'm just guessing.
I read somewhere that Galileo is 10x more "accurate" than the U.S. GPS. Aside from what exactly does that mean (absolute positioning, relative positioning) does anyone know if this is true? I can think of a whole host of new applications or applications that could be made a lot cheaper/easier (like autonomous vehicles) if this is true.
And if it is true, how do they achieve it? Better atomic clocks (in orbit presumably)? Better algorithms? Better knowledge of the satellites positions? Better receivers?
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
By the way, I'm sorry for the incorrect used of the word your, it should be you're as in "you are". I dislike it when people use it incorrectly so my apologies. I was in a hurry (but aren't we all?)
So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Is the amount of radiation dangerous? What about reflections? Not that it would matter in a military context but it might restrict its civilian applications.
Sorry if this brings back traumatic memories but was "The Architect" in "The Matrix Reloaded" (the second Matrix film) supposed to be you? Did the producers get your permission? Did you like your portrayal?
(Or maybe that was "The Colonel" from KFC after he went on a diet.)
(This is a repeat of a post above). Sorry, I should have made this point clear in my post.
If the comet came within a whisker of hitting us before, there's a not-insignificant chance it'll do so in the future. It's got an earth crossing orbit with an inclination that intersects our own orbit. If it's been broken up (as claimed in the original article) there's an even better chance that one of those (big) fragments is gonna whack us on the next go around.
Consider Apophis (the asteroid). In 2029 it's gonna come uncomfortably close to the earth. In 2036 (I think) there's a chance that it'll hit us. (I think this scenario will repeat into the future with decreasing probabilities). Now imagine that, instead of a single body, it was a stream of fragments "a million kilometers long". I think the chance of impact would go way up.
Remember that comet that hit Jupiter? (I think it was Shoemaker Levy) It made a close pass by Jupiter first which tore it apart (just like this comet is supposed to have done) then came back and broadsided the planet on a subsequent orbit. (In fact I think that's how they were able to get advance warning of the event and train a lot of telescopes on it, they saw it was going to make another close approach).
So, it's right to (perhaps moderately) panic if this was a close call until we can figure out where it went.
Sorry, I should have made this point clear in my post.
If the comet came within a whisker of hitting us before, there's a not-insignificant chance it'll do so in the future. It's got an earth crossing orbit with an inclination that intersects our own orbit. If it's been broken up (as claimed in the original article) there's an even better chance that one of those (big) fragments is gonna whack us on the next go around.
Consider Apophis (the asteroid). In 2029 it's gonna come uncomfortably close to the earth. In 2036 (I think) there's a chance that it'll hit us. (I think this scenario will repeat into the future with decreasing probabilities). Now imagine that, instead of a single body, it was a stream of fragments "a million kilometers long". I think the chance of impact would go way up.
Remember that comet that hit Jupiter? (I think it was Shoemaker Levy) It made a close pass by Jupiter first which tore it apart (just like this comet is supposed to have done) then came back and broadsided the planet on a subsequent orbit. (In fact I think that's how they were able to get advance warning of the event and train a lot of telescopes on it, they saw it was going to make another close approach).
So, it's right to (perhaps moderately) panic if this was a close call until we can figure out where it went.
Just wondering if some embedded controller somewhere had been hacked. It seems the Iranian space program would be an obvious target for some unfriendly foreign government to try to cripple. Even if (when?) the Iranians get the bomb they'll need some means of delivering it.
I would imagine it'll be too big to send via diplomatic pouch and their air force is completely outclassed by their main adversaries in the region (Israel and Saudi Arabia). (I don't know if those countries air forces could knock down a low-flying cruise missile, I'd think the cities and oil installations on the gulf might be indefensible). Despite having a few subs, I'd imagine the U.S. Navy tracks them very closely, still a short range attack by mini-subs or suicide speedboat might be possible.
So that leaves space. With their "military" space program being watched very carefully, it appears there will be some sort of ABM system covering U.S. Allies and Europe before they have an intermediate range missile capable of delivering a nuke. That's where their "civilian" program could conceivably come into play. A nuke placed IN ORBIT could go the "long way around" thus avoiding the theater defenses currently being built. Of course the U.S. has anti-sat weapons but they may not cover every approach especially if the weapon deorbits before completing even one revolution. (And it's pretty clear that the U.S. doesnt have the specially equipped F-15 fighters all over the world to cover its allies.).
Finally, who's to say that the U.S. will even know what to shoot down? The Iranians may say they've just launched a monkey into space only to reveal later (maybe MUCH later) that the capsule carrying the presumably now-dead monkey actually has a nuke instead. Even if the U.S. decided to shoot on sight any Iranian "satellite" that started acting funny over the U.S. mainland, it could be too late. An EMP blast before the ASAT weapon gets to it could prove pretty devastating.
That, by the way, is why the Outer Space treaty was put into place; having nukes in orbit was far too destabilizing and would have led to the world being just seconds away from WWIII (instead of the current approximately 30 minutes). Of course if the Iranians are going to ignore the non-proliferation treaty, who's to say they'll honor any others?
So there's a real incentive to deny the Iranians access to orbit. Anybody writing a James Bond script about this?
Ok I wondered why we didn't get HIT by some of the pieces of the comet instead of more people seeing it but then again I'm not an astronomer (good or bad).
Here's my previous post:
While it is not impossible that an extinction level event almost happened, I'd like to see a bit more evidence before panicking.
If this comet was so close, so much so that no other observatory on earth was able to see it due to "parallax", how come not one of the 450 or so pieces impacted the earth? (There are no reports of Tunguska sized impacts).
Also, wouldn't it be relatively easy to figure out where this thing was headed and find out where it is now? Unless it was a (very) long period comet or ended up in the sun, we should be able to track it down. In fact, if it exists, shouldn't it be easy to find as it will likely have an orbit that repeatedly intersects earth's orbit? (Ulp!)
Anyway, some slashdotters who read this post commented that it could be very hard to tell where the pieces could have ended up due to the chaotic influence of the earth's gravity. True but we're talking about something pretty big (a billion tons) that came within a hairs breadth of hitting the earth, you'd think there would be enough information in the observation to plot some of these large objects spewing gas and plumes. Likewise, the very fact that it came within (I think the article said a few hundred kilometers) means that, regardless of orbital inclination, it's orbit DID intersect that of the earth's orbit and presumably sone of the pieces would continue to do so in a very visible fashion (unless it is a long period comet or plunged into the sun!).
But then again I'm not an astronomer so who knows?
I'll probably get immediately modded down but this is the sort of thing that Apple (Steve Jobs) could've taken and cleaned up to make into something not just usable but something people WANT to use.
Unfortunately, in the hands of Microsoft it'll languish and maybe come out as some minor curiosity like Microsoft Surface.
So sad.
Anyway, it'd be nice if, as the hardware evolves, they could put the camera and projector in a users glasses. Not only would it make it less dorky but there would be much less shadowing since the light source could be very close to the light sensors (the camera and the users eyes!). As for the electronics, perhaps the projector (and camera) could be a simple optics assembly connected to the guts (laser/LED, CMOS, storage, power) on the users belt like an iPod (remember those?). Maybe instead of those ubiquitous white earbuds we would have white "eye buds" to clip onto glasses.
Well I posted this because of some things I had heard and because I was bored. (My anecdote about my relative though is true!)
Anyway, learned a lot about the making of Kimchee, the cancer causing properties (or not) of spices, the ability of acids to corrode aluminum and the inside coating of coke cans.
Koreans have (I read somewhere) the highest rate of stomach cancer in the world. While a culture of smoking and copious amounts of the national drink Soju certainly don't help, I think the blame can be safely laid on their extremely spicy cuisine. The national dish, "Kimchee" is basically fermented hot peppers and garlic with some lettuce added for texture. After being left underground in earthen jars for the entire winter, it is consumed with every meal and has even found it's way into western foods (Kimchee burgers).
The acidic content of Kimchee is quite high, urban legend has it capable of eating its way through the a coke can. Not a legend is the fact that there are no wooden bowls in Korean plateware, just stainless steel or ceramics. Likewise many Korean utensils are stainless steel, even chopsticks. Also, I think it's banned as cargo on numerous airlines, its corrosive properties plus being packed in a pressurized fermenting jar (with a pungent odor) gives new meaning to the term "suitcase bomb".
The incidence of stomach cancer has brought about documentaries and other public shows that discuss it and what to do about it. Fortunately if caught early stomach cancer is highly survivable, the stomach regrows readily (I guess that's why it can so easily expand). A relative of mine had an operation and he's fine now. Since there are so many surgeries done for stomach cancer if you should ever get that diagnosis, Korea's probably the best place to get it taken care of.
While it is not impossible that an extinction level event almost happened, I'd like to see a bit more evidence before panicking.
If this comet was so close, so much so that no other observatory on earth was able to see it due to "parallax", how come not one of the 450 or so pieces impacted the earth? (There are no reports of Tunguska sized impacts).
Also, wouldn't it be relatively easy to figure out where this thing was headed and find out where it is now? Unless it was a (very) long period comet or ended up in the sun, we should be able to track it down. In fact, if it exists, shouldn't it be easy to find as it will likely have an orbit that repeatedly intersects earth's orbit? (Ulp!)
Well, if we (either collectively or as individuals) manage to beat death through medical technology, robotics or the "Singularity" the earth/universe will be a very very different place.
One of the few good post-singularity books I've read is Greg Egan "Incandescence". Not many stories I've come across are such an interesting look at the problems facing immortal omnipotent post-humans.
Thanks for the answers to some of my questions. I didn't read the book, but might if it recommended (and if it's an e-book).
Likewise, never heard of "normal" numbers before (like I said, I'm not a mathematician). So thinks for the info.
Uh, is there any way to check this person's answer (short of duplicating the entire calculation)? Like I heard there's a way of confirming If a number is prime that's easier than figuring out what's the next prime number.
Isn't that one of the plot ideas in the book (which the movie was based on) "Contact"?
Scientist travels across interstellar space to meet super-advanced aliens and asks:
"Do you believe in God?"
To which they reply "Yes".
(A little surprised) "Why?"
"We have proof"
(Very surprised) "Proof?! What is it!"
"If you calculate Pi to the n-th digit you will find a message..."
Since I didn't read the book, I'm not sure this is how the exchange went, nor do I know what the "message" was. But it makes a good story! (I think in the Douglas Adams rewrite it was "42").
Anyway how would you determine, when looking at an infinitely long string of "random" numbers, what is a "message"? Couldn't you find, when looking long enough, ANYTHING; like the complete works of Shakespeare (written in the original Klingon?). I think (but again am not entirely sure) that that was the idea behind one of Stanislaw Lem's stories, that the U.S. government detects a signal from deep space and then finds more and more "messages" (meanings?) by subjecting it to more and more sophisticated(?) cryptographic analysis. (Will arbitrarily "strong" cryptanalysis of random noise produce anything you want?)
I guess this sort of thing is the ultimate case of "finding what you're looking for".
P.S. To the mathematicians: are there different kinds of Random numbers? Like aren't some systems are "chaotic" but not truly random? So while, for example, a Mandelbrot pattern may never repeat, does that mean it will show every possible pattern? So maybe Pi is a non-repeating numbers that is not Random. Or is it another kind of Random?
Ordinarily, being the geek that I am (and having worked at the very forefront of digital cinema) I'd be pleased that faster, better cheaper technology is replacing film, even in the "capture" (recording) stage.
However, as a wanna-be physicist, I know(?) that color is NOT just the simple mixture of three (or more) primaries; that is in Real Life(tm) it is a continuos spectrum and that film cameras (I think) capture it with some chemicals that are not just sensitive to a narrow slice of this spectrum. I compare this to modern CMOS based cameras in which the sensors, even if they are similarly "broadband", probably have different responses to light than say Kodachrome.
So, does this account for why some people say digital looks different than film? Can it corrected? Do people care? I worked in compression not color but I guess I should have learned this.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, too bad, I thought maybe I had stumbled across an idea that would've helped astronomy. I would've called it the "Vari-Focus Telescope". Clearly impractical for now, especially with our current fiscal problems.
They can't be just set at infinity? :)
Though it would be kinda neat if you could focus say from 1500-2000 light years. That way all the junk (planets, satellites, aliens) in front and all the stuff behind (galaxies, heaven, god) would be pleasantly blurry.
More seriously, I'm surprised they don't have some autofocusing mechanism like my cheap pocket camera does. I guess they can't project a little pattern onto the scene like some cameras used to do (it would require quite a light source and you'd be waiting a looooonnnnng time.). Even that would work better than the sonar focusing system the Polaroid SX-70 camera I suppose.
If people really like using Siri, then what's to keep Apple from using it as the front end for their own (or another party's) search engine?
It's all about who's closest to the user. Just as Microsoft feared their OS dominance would mean nothing if everyone spent their time in browsers, if search engines are pushed "beneath" these attractive voice interfaces, Google could be made irrelevant (on Apple devices anyway, especially because Apple will never let another company release something like Siri on iOS or Mac OS X).
Sorry, perhaps I phrased that wrong (Again I'm not a transportation expert or lawyer). I'd fully expect these big companies to pay for their errors in design or construction but in order to keep these costs predictable (otherwise they would have no idea whether or not it would be practical to enter this field) they should pay into an insurance fund with set damages etc.
If it doesn't make sense (if every tenth drive ends in a fatality) then obviously these companies should go bankrupt/not make cars. However, if one (or a very few) fatalities result in lawsuits costing hundreds of millions of dollars then maybe you've killed a technology that, as a whole, was beneficial to society.
(Of course the cynic might say, well that's what you might intend but it'll end up a bailout!)
I couldn't tell (from my incredibly brief skimming of the article) whether this included non-visible spectrum telescopes, notably radio telescopes.
Although it seems that radio telescopes are far too specialized and technical (expensive) a resource to be shared with the public, it would be neat to control one of those "dishes". I once worked on a S.E.T.I. project using the 84 ft. telescope at Harvard, MA (owned by Harvard U.) and I wouldn't mind more time on it. Of course probably the only thing we "amateurs" would do with it is look (or rather listen) for E.T. There might be someone out there who "knows" that the real interstellar communications frequency isn't around the "water hole" but around the methane line because that's what everybody who's anybody breathes!
If there are any (very high) ground based far-infrared telescopes available perhaps the sophisticated amateur could look for Dyson spheres (although it might to hard to tell them apart from the super cool brown dwarfs they've been finding).
... would like to congratulate our new Rubik's cube solving Lego overlords!
(That's the first time I've ever had a chance to post that, does that mean this meme is dead dead dead?)
Are there any provisions for safety mechanisms? Like, aren't there a few (okay maybe just one, the Moon) celestial objects that are so bright it could damage the sensors on a moderately large telescope?
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned, what's to keep a user from "thrashing" the telescope from side to side possibly damaging/wearing it out? On the other hand, are these agile enough to track objects in LEO? Can the users "program" it to do so (have a track a moving object as opposed to a spot in the sky?).
I assume none of them have that fancy anti-atmospheric aberration green laser attached to the scope, THEN a remote user could do some real damage to some passing planes/satellites!
I'm all for autonomous vehicles but I think before it goes forward (ha ha) shouldn't there be some sort of legal framework in place? I mean the first fatal accident that can be even possibly attributed to an autonomous vehicle could very well kill the industry for a while at least. (I'm reminded of how the fatal crash of one of Buckminster Fuller's super efficient teardrop shaped 3 wheeled vehicles killed that concept).
How about for all "certified" (through rigorous federal testing) vehicles, there be "no-fault" collision insurance (or limits on damages). Unfortunately I'm neither a transportation expert nor lawyer so I'm just guessing.
I read somewhere that Galileo is 10x more "accurate" than the U.S. GPS. Aside from what exactly does that mean (absolute positioning, relative positioning) does anyone know if this is true? I can think of a whole host of new applications or applications that could be made a lot cheaper/easier (like autonomous vehicles) if this is true.
And if it is true, how do they achieve it? Better atomic clocks (in orbit presumably)? Better algorithms? Better knowledge of the satellites positions? Better receivers?
By the way, I'm sorry for the incorrect used of the word your, it should be you're as in "you are". I dislike it when people use it incorrectly so my apologies. I was in a hurry (but aren't we all?)
Is the amount of radiation dangerous? What about reflections? Not that it would matter in a military context but it might restrict its civilian applications.
Sorry if this brings back traumatic memories but was "The Architect" in "The Matrix Reloaded" (the second Matrix film) supposed to be you? Did the producers get your permission? Did you like your portrayal?
(Or maybe that was "The Colonel" from KFC after he went on a diet.)
(This is a repeat of a post above). Sorry, I should have made this point clear in my post.
If the comet came within a whisker of hitting us before, there's a not-insignificant chance it'll do so in the future. It's got an earth crossing orbit with an inclination that intersects our own orbit. If it's been broken up (as claimed in the original article) there's an even better chance that one of those (big) fragments is gonna whack us on the next go around.
Consider Apophis (the asteroid). In 2029 it's gonna come uncomfortably close to the earth. In 2036 (I think) there's a chance that it'll hit us. (I think this scenario will repeat into the future with decreasing probabilities). Now imagine that, instead of a single body, it was a stream of fragments "a million kilometers long". I think the chance of impact would go way up.
Remember that comet that hit Jupiter? (I think it was Shoemaker Levy) It made a close pass by Jupiter first which tore it apart (just like this comet is supposed to have done) then came back and broadsided the planet on a subsequent orbit. (In fact I think that's how they were able to get advance warning of the event and train a lot of telescopes on it, they saw it was going to make another close approach).
So, it's right to (perhaps moderately) panic if this was a close call until we can figure out where it went.
Sorry, I should have made this point clear in my post.
If the comet came within a whisker of hitting us before, there's a not-insignificant chance it'll do so in the future. It's got an earth crossing orbit with an inclination that intersects our own orbit. If it's been broken up (as claimed in the original article) there's an even better chance that one of those (big) fragments is gonna whack us on the next go around.
Consider Apophis (the asteroid). In 2029 it's gonna come uncomfortably close to the earth. In 2036 (I think) there's a chance that it'll hit us. (I think this scenario will repeat into the future with decreasing probabilities). Now imagine that, instead of a single body, it was a stream of fragments "a million kilometers long". I think the chance of impact would go way up.
Remember that comet that hit Jupiter? (I think it was Shoemaker Levy) It made a close pass by Jupiter first which tore it apart (just like this comet is supposed to have done) then came back and broadsided the planet on a subsequent orbit. (In fact I think that's how they were able to get advance warning of the event and train a lot of telescopes on it, they saw it was going to make another close approach).
So, it's right to (perhaps moderately) panic if this was a close call until we can figure out where it went.
Just wondering if some embedded controller somewhere had been hacked. It seems the Iranian space program would be an obvious target for some unfriendly foreign government to try to cripple. Even if (when?) the Iranians get the bomb they'll need some means of delivering it.
I would imagine it'll be too big to send via diplomatic pouch and their air force is completely outclassed by their main adversaries in the region (Israel and Saudi Arabia). (I don't know if those countries air forces could knock down a low-flying cruise missile, I'd think the cities and oil installations on the gulf might be indefensible). Despite having a few subs, I'd imagine the U.S. Navy tracks them very closely, still a short range attack by mini-subs or suicide speedboat might be possible.
So that leaves space. With their "military" space program being watched very carefully, it appears there will be some sort of ABM system covering U.S. Allies and Europe before they have an intermediate range missile capable of delivering a nuke. That's where their "civilian" program could conceivably come into play. A nuke placed IN ORBIT could go the "long way around" thus avoiding the theater defenses currently being built. Of course the U.S. has anti-sat weapons but they may not cover every approach especially if the weapon deorbits before completing even one revolution. (And it's pretty clear that the U.S. doesnt have the specially equipped F-15 fighters all over the world to cover its allies.).
Finally, who's to say that the U.S. will even know what to shoot down? The Iranians may say they've just launched a monkey into space only to reveal later (maybe MUCH later) that the capsule carrying the presumably now-dead monkey actually has a nuke instead. Even if the U.S. decided to shoot on sight any Iranian "satellite" that started acting funny over the U.S. mainland, it could be too late. An EMP blast before the ASAT weapon gets to it could prove pretty devastating.
That, by the way, is why the Outer Space treaty was put into place; having nukes in orbit was far too destabilizing and would have led to the world being just seconds away from WWIII (instead of the current approximately 30 minutes). Of course if the Iranians are going to ignore the non-proliferation treaty, who's to say they'll honor any others?
So there's a real incentive to deny the Iranians access to orbit. Anybody writing a James Bond script about this?
Ok I wondered why we didn't get HIT by some of the pieces of the comet instead of more people seeing it but then again I'm not an astronomer (good or bad).
Here's my previous post:
While it is not impossible that an extinction level event almost happened, I'd like to see a bit more evidence before panicking.
If this comet was so close, so much so that no other observatory on earth was able to see it due to "parallax", how come not one of the 450 or so pieces impacted the earth? (There are no reports of Tunguska sized impacts).
Also, wouldn't it be relatively easy to figure out where this thing was headed and find out where it is now? Unless it was a (very) long period comet or ended up in the sun, we should be able to track it down. In fact, if it exists, shouldn't it be easy to find as it will likely have an orbit that repeatedly intersects earth's orbit? (Ulp!)
Anyway, some slashdotters who read this post commented that it could be very hard to tell where the pieces could have ended up due to the chaotic influence of the earth's gravity. True but we're talking about something pretty big (a billion tons) that came within a hairs breadth of hitting the earth, you'd think there would be enough information in the observation to plot some of these large objects spewing gas and plumes. Likewise, the very fact that it came within (I think the article said a few hundred kilometers) means that, regardless of orbital inclination, it's orbit DID intersect that of the earth's orbit and presumably sone of the pieces would continue to do so in a very visible fashion (unless it is a long period comet or plunged into the sun!).
But then again I'm not an astronomer so who knows?
I'll probably get immediately modded down but this is the sort of thing that Apple (Steve Jobs) could've taken and cleaned up to make into something not just usable but something people WANT to use.
Unfortunately, in the hands of Microsoft it'll languish and maybe come out as some minor curiosity like Microsoft Surface.
So sad.
Anyway, it'd be nice if, as the hardware evolves, they could put the camera and projector in a users glasses. Not only would it make it less dorky but there would be much less shadowing since the light source could be very close to the light sensors (the camera and the users eyes!). As for the electronics, perhaps the projector (and camera) could be a simple optics assembly connected to the guts (laser/LED, CMOS, storage, power) on the users belt like an iPod (remember those?). Maybe instead of those ubiquitous white earbuds we would have white "eye buds" to clip onto glasses.
Hmmm... Can I patent that?
Well I posted this because of some things I had heard and because I was bored. (My anecdote about my relative though is true!)
Anyway, learned a lot about the making of Kimchee, the cancer causing properties (or not) of spices, the ability of acids to corrode aluminum and the inside coating of coke cans.
Hope I didn't waste too much of your time!
but it may not happen quickly...
Koreans have (I read somewhere) the highest rate of stomach cancer in the world. While a culture of smoking and copious amounts of the national drink Soju certainly don't help, I think the blame can be safely laid on their extremely spicy cuisine. The national dish, "Kimchee" is basically fermented hot peppers and garlic with some lettuce added for texture. After being left underground in earthen jars for the entire winter, it is consumed with every meal and has even found it's way into western foods (Kimchee burgers).
The acidic content of Kimchee is quite high, urban legend has it capable of eating its way through the a coke can. Not a legend is the fact that there are no wooden bowls in Korean plateware, just stainless steel or ceramics. Likewise many Korean utensils are stainless steel, even chopsticks. Also, I think it's banned as cargo on numerous airlines, its corrosive properties plus being packed in a pressurized fermenting jar (with a pungent odor) gives new meaning to the term "suitcase bomb".
The incidence of stomach cancer has brought about documentaries and other public shows that discuss it and what to do about it. Fortunately if caught early stomach cancer is highly survivable, the stomach regrows readily (I guess that's why it can so easily expand). A relative of mine had an operation and he's fine now. Since there are so many surgeries done for stomach cancer if you should ever get that diagnosis, Korea's probably the best place to get it taken care of.
While it is not impossible that an extinction level event almost happened, I'd like to see a bit more evidence before panicking.
If this comet was so close, so much so that no other observatory on earth was able to see it due to "parallax", how come not one of the 450 or so pieces impacted the earth? (There are no reports of Tunguska sized impacts).
Also, wouldn't it be relatively easy to figure out where this thing was headed and find out where it is now? Unless it was a (very) long period comet or ended up in the sun, we should be able to track it down. In fact, if it exists, shouldn't it be easy to find as it will likely have an orbit that repeatedly intersects earth's orbit? (Ulp!)
I just don't want to die!
Well, if we (either collectively or as individuals) manage to beat death through medical technology, robotics or the "Singularity" the earth/universe will be a very very different place.
One of the few good post-singularity books I've read is Greg Egan "Incandescence". Not many stories I've come across are such an interesting look at the problems facing immortal omnipotent post-humans.
Well here's hoping!
Yikes! Well there's a reason why I'm not a mathematician :(. Anyway, thanks, I think I got something from this and I'll chew on it some more.
Thanks for the answers to some of my questions. I didn't read the book, but might if it recommended (and if it's an e-book).
Likewise, never heard of "normal" numbers before (like I said, I'm not a mathematician). So thinks for the info.
Uh, is there any way to check this person's answer (short of duplicating the entire calculation)? Like I heard there's a way of confirming If a number is prime that's easier than figuring out what's the next prime number.
Isn't that one of the plot ideas in the book (which the movie was based on) "Contact"?
Scientist travels across interstellar space to meet super-advanced aliens and asks:
"Do you believe in God?"
To which they reply "Yes".
(A little surprised) "Why?"
"We have proof"
(Very surprised) "Proof?! What is it!"
"If you calculate Pi to the n-th digit you will find a message..."
Since I didn't read the book, I'm not sure this is how the exchange went, nor do I know what the "message" was. But it makes a good story! (I think in the Douglas Adams rewrite it was "42").
Anyway how would you determine, when looking at an infinitely long string of "random" numbers, what is a "message"? Couldn't you find, when looking long enough, ANYTHING; like the complete works of Shakespeare (written in the original Klingon?). I think (but again am not entirely sure) that that was the idea behind one of Stanislaw Lem's stories, that the U.S. government detects a signal from deep space and then finds more and more "messages" (meanings?) by subjecting it to more and more sophisticated(?) cryptographic analysis. (Will arbitrarily "strong" cryptanalysis of random noise produce anything you want?)
I guess this sort of thing is the ultimate case of "finding what you're looking for".
P.S. To the mathematicians: are there different kinds of Random numbers? Like aren't some systems are "chaotic" but not truly random? So while, for example, a Mandelbrot pattern may never repeat, does that mean it will show every possible pattern? So maybe Pi is a non-repeating numbers that is not Random. Or is it another kind of Random?
Ordinarily, being the geek that I am (and having worked at the very forefront of digital cinema) I'd be pleased that faster, better cheaper technology is replacing film, even in the "capture" (recording) stage.
However, as a wanna-be physicist, I know(?) that color is NOT just the simple mixture of three (or more) primaries; that is in Real Life(tm) it is a continuos spectrum and that film cameras (I think) capture it with some chemicals that are not just sensitive to a narrow slice of this spectrum. I compare this to modern CMOS based cameras in which the sensors, even if they are similarly "broadband", probably have different responses to light than say Kodachrome.
So, does this account for why some people say digital looks different than film? Can it corrected? Do people care? I worked in compression not color but I guess I should have learned this. :(