It's for this reason that I don't hire people who have only done one thing in their life. They tend to believe that their way is the only way; that they know more about whatever I need them to do than I do; that they are a gift to me; that they are irreplaceable.
None of those are usually true.
They need to get out there and experience real people and real life.
I want someone who has tried various majors, someone who has taken philosophy and computer science and physics and photography and history of jazz and has hiked the Appalachian Trail (in reality and in euphemism) and has made their own kite and has attended a political rally and has volunteered at a homeless shelter and has babysat and has restored a classic muscle car and has participated in toastmasters and is training to run a marathon and watches soccer and plays cribbage and...
I don't want someone who spends their days sitting at a computer figuring out how to make ext4 work 0.1% more efficiently. They may know the details of that code, but they'll be useless as an employee.
The Earth has what's called a tidal bulge that is caused by the moon (and the sun). This tidal bulge extends toward and away (180-degrees) from the Moon, though due to various strength and inertial effects and rotation of the Earth, the bulge doesn't actually point directly at the Moon.
What it amounts to is that the moon's gravitational effect on the Earth, averaged over the long term, would not have any significant differential effect on high-mass vs low-mass materials within the Earth's interior.
The sentence you're pointing at particularly was about the tidal flexing of the Earth, which would have some small effect on the Earth's interior energy, causing a slight heating and possibly allowing higher mass materials to move deeper into the Earth's interior.
First, if the moon and Earth were both tidally locked, this might have some ever-so-tiny effect, but probably not enough to notice. There was a time when the fact that the Moon's center of mass is offset from its center of figure was thought to be due to being tidally locked with to the Earthâ"that has been shown not to be the case and the difference is thought to be due to volcanism and large impacts.
Note that the Earth-Moon's barycenter (center of mass) is located within the interior of the Earth, so whatever long-term, direct gravitational effect the Moon has on Earth's materials, it cannot cause those materials to move into the crust of the Earth.
The Moon orbits the Earth rather than being fully locked to it, so its differential gravitational effects on high- vs. low-mass materials would essentially average out over time (sometimes it would be pulling those high mass materials away from the center of the Earth and sometimes it would be pulling them toward the center of the Earth).
Finally, the fact that the Earth has a moon in a non-circular orbit means that it has the opposite effect from what you describe. Tides on the ocean are the most obvious effect from this non-circular orbit; the oceans are gravitationally pulled toward the moon (slightly lagging its passing). The solid earth experiences the same differential stresses due to the passing of the moon, though the strength of the solid earth greatly decreases the magnitude of its change in shape compared with the change in shape of the ocean. So, the Earth is constantly being flexed as the moon passes by (closer and then further away in its eccentric orbit of the Earth). Imagine (or do the experiment) flexing a paperclip very quickly. It heats up because of internal friction. The same is happening to the Earth. The gravitational energy expressed as tides is being dissipated as heat in the Earth's interior. This means that the Moon is (very, very, very slightly now, but a bit more so in the past) contributing to the melting of the interior of the Earth. Because massive materials (iron, etc.) will eventually sink toward the center of a fluid object, the Moon actually contributed to moving the heavier elements (iron, sulfur that binds to iron, and etc.) to the core, not to the crust as described in your post.
As usual,/.'s libertarians run their mouths without actually having a clue. They seek to impose their definitions of rights on others.
Instead of sitting by while they ruin another discussion, let's start with an actual, legal definition of human rights as determined by a legally-binding body instead of some knee-jerker who thinks his thoughts should extend to all humans. The Declaration of Independence actually doesn't count as a legal document (anymore), so let's dispose of that right away, even before we get to the point of dismissing the US Constitution as a whole because it only applies to one group of humans.
Let's go with the United Nations, the generally recognized body for international affairs.
Oh, Look! They went through this process already! In 1948, when the world was falling apart, they still came to an agreement on what are the basic human rights. I'm going to go with their work rather than some Randian who still thinks John Galt is a hero.
The most relevant is Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Does this give people an entitlement to a specific conduit for exercising their freedom of expression? No. But it does give people the right to communicate through any conduit they choose (as long as they don't do something that infringes on other peoples' rights to use that conduit).
Below are a few of the relevant Articles.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. . . .
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance wit
So, your anecdote about "teachers you know" is science? And a poll is propaganda?
I point out 1st year and 22nd year salaries.
I'm comparing the salaries between a teacher in their 22nd year with 100+ credit hours of education beyond a BS/BA and a programmer in their 5th year with 0 credit hours beyond a BS.
From your inability to distinguish between reality and your own warped biases, your inability to read, and your ad hominem attacks, it's clear you aren't actually interested in a conversation, just in attacking teachers and their supporters.
Teachers work about 11.5 hours/day (http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_full_noapp.pdf)
200 days * 11.5 hours/day = 2300 hours per year. A typical job with a 40-hour/week nets 2088 hours/year.
So, already your myth is busted, but let's continue.
The pay schedule for teachers in my area ranges from: $30,943 for a BA first year teacher to $60250 for a BA+100 and 22 years experience. (or MA+60; A JD from George Mason requires a BA+89 hours)
$30,943/2300 = $13.45 per hour. $60250/2300 = $25.56 per hour. These include benefits, and is before taxes, so the take-home is significantly less than this.
So, let's talk about equal pay for equal work.
In my area, A Senior Software Engineer with a BS+5 can expect to make between $65k and $131k/year. 65,000/2088 = $31.13/hour 131,000/2088= $62.74/hour
And this software engineer isn't at a gaming company with 80-hour work weeks, this is a 9-5+occasional hours job.
And I think you have a skewed perception of a real teacher's work day and a skewed perception of actual pay rates.
11.5 hours/day is the norm. (http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_full_noapp.pdf)
The school year for students is 180 days. Teachers must be there a week early and leave a week later. They also have work days throughout the year that the students are not there for. This gives about 200 days per year of work. 200 days * 11.5 hours/day = 2300 hours per year. The 40-hour work week gives 2088 hours per year.
The pay schedule for teachers in my area ranges from $30,943 for a BA, first year to $60250 for a BA+100 (or MA+60; A JD from George Mason requires a BA+89 hours) and 22 years experience.
$30,943/2300 = $13.45 per hour. $60250/2300 = $25.56 per hour. These include benefits, so the take-home is significantly less than this.
First, the submitter got the value wrong. The Large Monolithic Imager (LMI) has 36 MPixels (technically, it has 6144x6160 = 37,847,040 pixels), not 16 MPixels.
Second, being a scientific instrument, it has a rather lot of requirements that your Nikon doesn't; the number of pixels is only one of several parameters engineers trade against each other when building a camera for scientific use.
You can usually get past a paywall by going to your local public or university library and accessing the article there. Tedious, I know.
Conclusions from the article:
Here we have identified a selective cap-dependent translation initiation mechanism that operates independently of eIF4E and that targets mRNAs for protein synthesis during hypoxia. The results suggest that the HIF-2αâ"RBM4â"eIF4E2 complex is extensively involved in coordinating the translation response to low oxygen availability and is therefore essential in cellular oxygen homeostasis. This complex probably recruits functional homologues of the canonical eIF4E-dependent pathway, as well as distinct components, to initiate hypoxic protein synthesis. This process is regulated by the oxygen-sensing machinery first identified as the main regulator of the transcriptional response to hypoxia13, 14, 15, 16. A human population that recently migrated to the Tibetan highlands contains a point mutation in the gene encoding HIF-2α (EPAS1), further emphasizing the evolutionary role of HIF-2α in the adaptation to high altitude and low oxygen tension27. The target mRNAs code for proteins such as EGFR, PDGFRA and IGF1R that are implicated in the adaptive response to hypoxia as well as a wide variety of biological processes including development and cancer. The role of these receptor tyrosine kinases in human malignancy is particularly well documented and they are at the centre of targeted therapy11, 28. EGFR is often overproduced by tumours that harbour a wild-type EGFR gene, suggesting that cancer cells hijack the eIF4E2 pathway for their proliferative advantage29, 30. The results shown here provide the foundation for further investigation of the adaptive properties of the basic protein synthesis machinery in response to environmental conditions.
A magma ocean is not a 100% liquid rock layer beneath the surface.
The observations made by this team are consistent with a 50 km-thick layer about 50 km below the surface (that is, within the mantle) with >=20 volume% melt fraction. This work is based on how Io affects Jupiter's magnetic field.
Other research teams have demonstrated, since the 1990s that Io should have a mantle with a >= 20 volume% melt fraction at some depth in the mantle--it was never clear where this magma ocean was located. This work is based on observations of the surface eruptions and models for how quickly silicate lavas cool.
The fact that these agree is significant.
A substantial portion of Io at 100 volume% melt would actually not work because pure liquid does not dissipate enough of the energy from the tidal forces to maintain 100 volume% melt. That is there's a feedback loop between Io's interior and the tidal flexing:
* Too much liquid in the interior and the energy dissipation will decrease significantly, allowing the liquid to cool enough to solidify significantly. * Too little liquid and the interior would quickly dissipate enough tidal energy (in the form of friction) to significantly melt the interior.
So, Io's orbital resonances keep a small part of its mantle molten at between 20 volume% and 50-70 volume.
That there's now a depth associated with this magma ocean is actually quite significant. We can start better understanding the role volatiles play in Io's volcanism now that we know where the molten rock is coming from.
Venus is basically the same size as the Earth. Earth's mean radius is 6,371 km. Venus' mean radius is 6052 km. The masses are also similar, as are their compositions.
A more likely control on whether plate tectonics may be initiated is the existence of liquid water at the surface and within the lithosphere of the planet in question. Water greatly reduces the yield strength of plates (by as much as 62% when going from low to moderate temperatures compared with a drop of only 39% for dry olivine). So, while plate tectonics seems to be necessary for life, water (necessary for life) may be necessary for plate tectonics. Venus is just at the range from the Sun where it could have lost all of its water too quickly for plate tectonics to initiate (especially if it lost the water long before the planet was mostly still molten).
So, someone represented a company that has different ideas than you do...and that's a problem because? Do/.ers really believe that their employer is their sole identity defining characteristic? Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes? It sure seems that that's what you're all saying when you go on these witch-hunts.
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about 10% of a planetary surface and AUs.
Earth's surface area is 5.1x10^8 km^2. 10% of that is, obviously, 5.1x10^7 km^2. The land area of the US is about 9.8x10^6 km^2, so we're talking about 5-times the land area of the US. None of this has anything to do with distance from the star, just to do with the radius of the planet.
But, as you say, the point of 10% isn't that it's a special number; it's a starting point. Notice that this definition explicitly excludes any gaseous planets from the get-go. That's not necessarily fair, of course, but we've got to start somewhere, and rocky planets are a LOT simpler to understand w.r.t. possibilities of life.
Earth's average albedo isn't really all that controversial or problematic. For example, we can say that the poles probably had such and such an albedo at such and such a time (based on climate models based on core samples), the clouds are difficult for a specific times (decades or so), but again the climate will dictate some average cloud cover that is relatively accurate over long periods over the entire Earth.
Going into more detail would require an actual climate model (such as the Hadley model), which doesn't make much sense for extrasolar planets since we know next to nothing about atmospheres (especially their composition) on most extrasolar planets. Of course, we can speculate and use places like Titan, Mars, Venus, Earth, and Triton as jumping-off points for planets that are certain distances from their parent star.
Milankovitch cycles are certainly included in long-term habitability or continuous habitability zone research, but we're really limited by not knowing anything about the obliquity/precession cycles of extra-solar planets, which are quite dependent on specific circumstances of those planets.
The T-tauri phase of the pre-main sequence stars would strip almost any magnetic field-protected atmosphere from most planets, so we're fairly confident that any planets found orbiting such stars are uninhabitable. In fact, there are a lot of stars that can be ruled out (of having any sort of habitable zone) just by looking at them.
Habitability zones are for "well-behaved" stars with well-behaved planets. Some researchers are looking at double or triple star systems, so we'll have a better understanding of the possibility of life in such systems as time goes on.
Yes, the moon is within the habitable zone, but it's not habitable. If we discover a rocky planet in the habitable zone of another star, the first thing we'll be looking for is an atmosphere (which is quite a bit more difficult than finding the planet, but techniques are being developed and tested). If we discover evidence for an atmosphere, the habitability of that planet jumps into a realm that is much more interesting. Then we start looking for evidence of certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, Nitrogen, etc.).
A habitable zone around a main sequence star was originally (1959) defined as a (virtual) ring around that star in which at least 10% of the surface of a planet, with an Earth-like atmosphere, in that zone had a mean temperature of between 0 and 30 C with extremes not exceeding -10 and 40 C. This is appropriate for humans to survive.
The zone was quickly expanded to mean wherever liquid water was stable. The term "biostable" was employed to mean where liquid water was stable and the term "habitable" was restricted to mean a place suitable for humans. Soon, though, "habitable" was expanded to replace "biostable" and to include anywhere that liquid water is stable.
All (peer-reviewed) models since the original definition have used one type of atmosphere or another, usually an atmosphere chemically similar to Earth's. Most have also considered planetary albedo (surface brightness), solar evolution (as a star moves along the main sequence, the habitable zone changes or disappears, depending on the details), etc.
Several models have pessimistic estimates to the width and/or lifetime of a habitable zone, most often because an atmosphere like the Earth's is only metastable and it could collapse with only a few % change in solar energy input (distance from or luminosity of the sun, for example can greatly affect the stability of an atmosphere). Other models have included climate stabilization by linking CO2 and surface processes such as the creation/weathering of certain types of rock that remove/add CO2 from/to the atmosphere. There are a lot of these kinds of details that are included in most models of the habitable zone. A lot of the work is in determining which details are more important than others.
For my graduate work, we had to define the habitable zone around the sun, at the beginning of the solar system (4.556 Ga), and now. To do so, we had to start from the proplyd, condense all of the elements at the right distances from the sun, build the planets (we were allowed to assume that they formed in their current positions unless we wanted to make our work more difficult), allow atmospheres to condense or form, depending on where the planets were, etc., and finally determine which planets were possibly in the habitable zone as the sun evolved (Venus, Earth, and Mars, depending on the details and assumptions), and then determine whether the planets that are here now are in the habitable zone, and why or why not.
We, of course, used some pretty simple 1-D models for atmosphere, or used published models and argued why they were valid. We used simple models for planetary albedo, didn't evolve the albedo unless the atmosphere collapsed or changed dramatically in some other way (ignored Earth-like clouds, for example), etc. We used simple estimates for the concentrations of radioactive elements that could contribute to the surface temperature, used a simple model for luminosity evolution, etc., etc., etc.
For these kinds of simple models, the inner edge of the habitable zone is defined by when water will be lost from the atmosphere (through photolysis of the water vapor and escape of the hydrogen) and the outer edge is defined by when CO2 condenses and causes runaway glaciation.
Technically, the Moon is within the habitable zone, but it's obviously not habitable. Neither are Venus or Mars. This is because they don't have the right atmosphere, and may never have had the right conditions.
I make no guarantees to that assertion's applicability other than in the context in which it was originally intended.
The "holy grail" (so to speak) right now is finding evidence for ANY life outside of our planet. Doing so would change our relationship with the universe in many ways (even though most relevant scientists are much less agnostic than they should be when it comes to the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe). Once we find life in one place not on Earth, we'll be much more open to the idea of looking all over for it and for other forms of life than what we're familiar with. So, until that first goal is achieved, we'll look where we think we're most likely to find life.
We can only recognize life as we already understand it. A common medical exam question is to define life. A common graduate school exam question is to define life. How do we do that? Based on what we know.
We know that life (as-we-know-it) requires a few conditions, so we look for planets that could support those conditions.
Nobody thinks that's the only place to find life, but it's probably the easiest place to find life that we would understand...
Yes. Mostly. For this (transit photometry) method.
There are several methods of finding an extrasolar planet.
Briefly: 1) Pulsar variations: If a planet orbits a pulsar, the pulsar's timing will vary in a manner that can be detected by us, and we can use 3-D trig to figure out relevant parameters such as mass and radial distance. 2) Doppler shift of a star's emission lines: If a planet orbits a solar-type star, we can use the star's doppler shift of certain spectra to determine the various parameters of the body (or bodies) orbiting the star. 3) Gravitational microlensing: If two stars align just right to create a microlensing effect, the star further from us will show up as several images or as an Einstein ring, and its brightness will be amplified. If there's a planet orbiting the star that's closer to us, those mirror images or the ring will change with time, and they will be a bit brighter than without the planet. 4) Astrometry (measurements of the variation of a star's position relative to the "plane of the sky"): If there's a massive planet with an eccentric orbit, the star will orbit a barycenter that's outside of its mass, causing the star to move relative to the background. 5) Direct imaging: with certain techniques for processing stellar imagery, we can detect whether or not there's a planet reflecting some of that star's light to us. 6) Transit photometry: observing the star's brightness decrease as the planet eclipses the star. This works best for planets with a perfect orbital alignment with us, but we can still detect and work out minimum values for the relevant parameters. 7) Radio flux: Certain jovian-type planets can emit radio fluxes that differ significantly from most stars. These fluxes can be difficult, though not impossible, to detect from the interstellar noise.
1) These images are not photoshopped (at least not the ones on uahirise.org). If you knew anything about remote sensing, CCD sensors, image processing, or science, you'd know that.
"PSP_005000_1000_RGB.NOMAP.JP2 3-color image consisting of RED, BG, and synthetic blue images. The BG image has been warped to line up with the RED.NOMAP image. The BG (blue-green) bandpass primarily accepts green light. The synthetic blue image digital numbers (DNs) consist of the BG image DN multiplied by 2 minus 30% of the RED image DN for each pixel. This is not unique data, but provides a more appealing way to display the color variations present in just two bandpasses, RED and BG."
"For the Extras products, each color band is individually stretched to maximize contrast, so the colors are enhanced differently for each image based on the color and brightness of each scene. Scenes with dark shadows and bright sunlit slopes or with both bright and dark materials are stretched less, so the colors are less enhanced than is the case over bland scenes."
Whether one uses Photoshop or other software to enhance images to become more pleasing or effectful, it's generally called photoshopping.
Mars may look rather dull compared to Earth, and there's not much light there. But I'd much rather see things as they are, and the IR imagery displayed separately (preferably as black/white, as is traditional as it doesn't give any false impressions that it's visible light). That would be much more impressing than artificial colour "enhancements" and contrast stretching individual colour bands to make the images appear more colourful.
In many ways, exaggerating space images that are already impressive because they are from space to make more of an impact on the public isn't much different from photoshopping people to make their eyes bluer, lips redder, teeth whiter, and wrinkles less visible.
You CANNOT "see things as they are" with the HiRISE images.
1) Does your monitor display Infrared? 2) Does your monitor display "red" with the same bandpass that the HiRISE detectors are sensitive to? 3) Does your monitor display the bluegreen that HiRISE is sensitive to? 4) Are your eyes sensitive, in the same way as the HiRISE detectors, to the same bandpasses as the HiRISE detectors?
No.
5) It simply isn't "traditional" to show IR or other non-visible wavelength data as a separate grayscale image. Take a look at Hubble images. 6) The difference between photoshopping and processing these images is: a) there's documentation on exactly how it's done, and why, b) the "original--whatever that means" images are available to anyone who actually has an interest in the imagery rather than complaining about scientists. 7) Mars doesn't look dull compared with Earth. The bandpasses were chosen for science. The public images are just that, to excite the public. If you want to do science, then go to the original source. If you want to look at pretty pictures, then look at the pretty pictures.
What, precisely, would you like to see?
Would you like to see the raw numbers that come out of the detectors? Those won't do you much good since you clearly don't know anything about Mars science or remote sensing. Some amount of the "signal" is actually generated by the instrument. In addition, some amount of the "signal" is due to heat generated by the spacecraft, other instruments, etc. If you would like to see the raw data, go here:
Slashdot Mirror
It's for this reason that I don't hire people who have only done one thing in their life. They tend to believe that their way is the only way; that they know more about whatever I need them to do than I do; that they are a gift to me; that they are irreplaceable.
None of those are usually true.
They need to get out there and experience real people and real life.
I want someone who has tried various majors, someone who has taken philosophy and computer science and physics and photography and history of jazz and has hiked the Appalachian Trail (in reality and in euphemism) and has made their own kite and has attended a political rally and has volunteered at a homeless shelter and has babysat and has restored a classic muscle car and has participated in toastmasters and is training to run a marathon and watches soccer and plays cribbage and...
I don't want someone who spends their days sitting at a computer figuring out how to make ext4 work 0.1% more efficiently. They may know the details of that code, but they'll be useless as an employee.
It's not incorrect. It's a simplification.
The Earth has what's called a tidal bulge that is caused by the moon (and the sun). This tidal bulge extends toward and away (180-degrees) from the Moon, though due to various strength and inertial effects and rotation of the Earth, the bulge doesn't actually point directly at the Moon.
What it amounts to is that the moon's gravitational effect on the Earth, averaged over the long term, would not have any significant differential effect on high-mass vs low-mass materials within the Earth's interior.
The sentence you're pointing at particularly was about the tidal flexing of the Earth, which would have some small effect on the Earth's interior energy, causing a slight heating and possibly allowing higher mass materials to move deeper into the Earth's interior.
This is incorrect.
First, if the moon and Earth were both tidally locked, this might have some ever-so-tiny effect, but probably not enough to notice. There was a time when the fact that the Moon's center of mass is offset from its center of figure was thought to be due to being tidally locked with to the Earthâ"that has been shown not to be the case and the difference is thought to be due to volcanism and large impacts.
Note that the Earth-Moon's barycenter (center of mass) is located within the interior of the Earth, so whatever long-term, direct gravitational effect the Moon has on Earth's materials, it cannot cause those materials to move into the crust of the Earth.
The Moon orbits the Earth rather than being fully locked to it, so its differential gravitational effects on high- vs. low-mass materials would essentially average out over time (sometimes it would be pulling those high mass materials away from the center of the Earth and sometimes it would be pulling them toward the center of the Earth).
Finally, the fact that the Earth has a moon in a non-circular orbit means that it has the opposite effect from what you describe. Tides on the ocean are the most obvious effect from this non-circular orbit; the oceans are gravitationally pulled toward the moon (slightly lagging its passing). The solid earth experiences the same differential stresses due to the passing of the moon, though the strength of the solid earth greatly decreases the magnitude of its change in shape compared with the change in shape of the ocean. So, the Earth is constantly being flexed as the moon passes by (closer and then further away in its eccentric orbit of the Earth). Imagine (or do the experiment) flexing a paperclip very quickly. It heats up because of internal friction. The same is happening to the Earth. The gravitational energy expressed as tides is being dissipated as heat in the Earth's interior. This means that the Moon is (very, very, very slightly now, but a bit more so in the past) contributing to the melting of the interior of the Earth. Because massive materials (iron, etc.) will eventually sink toward the center of a fluid object, the Moon actually contributed to moving the heavier elements (iron, sulfur that binds to iron, and etc.) to the core, not to the crust as described in your post.
As usual, /.'s libertarians run their mouths without actually having a clue. They seek to impose their definitions of rights on others.
Instead of sitting by while they ruin another discussion, let's start with an actual, legal definition of human rights as determined by a legally-binding body instead of some knee-jerker who thinks his thoughts should extend to all humans. The Declaration of Independence actually doesn't count as a legal document (anymore), so let's dispose of that right away, even before we get to the point of dismissing the US Constitution as a whole because it only applies to one group of humans.
Let's go with the United Nations, the generally recognized body for international affairs.
Oh, Look! They went through this process already! In 1948, when the world was falling apart, they still came to an agreement on what are the basic human rights. I'm going to go with their work rather than some Randian who still thinks John Galt is a hero.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
The most relevant is Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Does this give people an entitlement to a specific conduit for exercising their freedom of expression? No. But it does give people the right to communicate through any conduit they choose (as long as they don't do something that infringes on other peoples' rights to use that conduit).
Below are a few of the relevant Articles.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
.
.
.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance wit
This isn't true.
There are 14 states that exempt teachers from social security. That's hardly "generally."
And those teachers that are exempted from SS do not receive the benefits of SS (for their teaching job) once they retire from teaching.
So, your anecdote about "teachers you know" is science? And a poll is propaganda?
I point out 1st year and 22nd year salaries.
I'm comparing the salaries between a teacher in their 22nd year with 100+ credit hours of education beyond a BS/BA and a programmer in their 5th year with 0 credit hours beyond a BS.
From your inability to distinguish between reality and your own warped biases, your inability to read, and your ad hominem attacks, it's clear you aren't actually interested in a conversation, just in attacking teachers and their supporters.
Let's do that, then!
Teachers work about 200 days per year.
Teachers work about 11.5 hours/day (http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_full_noapp.pdf)
200 days * 11.5 hours/day = 2300 hours per year.
A typical job with a 40-hour/week nets 2088 hours/year.
So, already your myth is busted, but let's continue.
The pay schedule for teachers in my area ranges from:
$30,943 for a BA first year teacher
to
$60250 for a BA+100 and 22 years experience.
(or MA+60; A JD from George Mason requires a BA+89 hours)
$30,943/2300 = $13.45 per hour.
$60250/2300 = $25.56 per hour.
These include benefits, and is before taxes, so the take-home is significantly less than this.
So, let's talk about equal pay for equal work.
In my area, A Senior Software Engineer with a BS+5 can expect to make between $65k and $131k/year.
65,000/2088 = $31.13/hour
131,000/2088= $62.74/hour
And this software engineer isn't at a gaming company with 80-hour work weeks, this is a 9-5+occasional hours job.
And I think you have a skewed perception of a real teacher's work day and a skewed perception of actual pay rates.
11.5 hours/day is the norm.
(http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_full_noapp.pdf)
The school year for students is 180 days. Teachers must be there a week early and leave a week later. They also have work days throughout the year that the students are not there for. This gives about 200 days per year of work.
200 days * 11.5 hours/day = 2300 hours per year.
The 40-hour work week gives 2088 hours per year.
The pay schedule for teachers in my area ranges from $30,943 for a BA, first year to $60250 for a BA+100 (or MA+60; A JD from George Mason requires a BA+89 hours) and 22 years experience.
$30,943/2300 = $13.45 per hour.
$60250/2300 = $25.56 per hour.
These include benefits, so the take-home is significantly less than this.
First, the submitter got the value wrong. The Large Monolithic Imager (LMI) has 36 MPixels (technically, it has 6144x6160 = 37,847,040 pixels), not 16 MPixels.
http://www.lowell.edu/dct_instruments.php
Second, being a scientific instrument, it has a rather lot of requirements that your Nikon doesn't; the number of pixels is only one of several parameters engineers trade against each other when building a camera for scientific use.
Conclusions from the article:
A magma ocean is not a 100% liquid rock layer beneath the surface.
The observations made by this team are consistent with a 50 km-thick layer about 50 km below the surface (that is, within the mantle) with >=20 volume% melt fraction. This work is based on how Io affects Jupiter's magnetic field.
Other research teams have demonstrated, since the 1990s that Io should have a mantle with a >= 20 volume% melt fraction at some depth in the mantle--it was never clear where this magma ocean was located. This work is based on observations of the surface eruptions and models for how quickly silicate lavas cool.
The fact that these agree is significant.
A substantial portion of Io at 100 volume% melt would actually not work because pure liquid does not dissipate enough of the energy from the tidal forces to maintain 100 volume% melt. That is there's a feedback loop between Io's interior and the tidal flexing:
* Too much liquid in the interior and the energy dissipation will decrease significantly, allowing the liquid to cool enough to solidify significantly.
* Too little liquid and the interior would quickly dissipate enough tidal energy (in the form of friction) to significantly melt the interior.
So, Io's orbital resonances keep a small part of its mantle molten at between 20 volume% and 50-70 volume.
That there's now a depth associated with this magma ocean is actually quite significant. We can start better understanding the role volatiles play in Io's volcanism now that we know where the molten rock is coming from.
Venus is basically the same size as the Earth.
Earth's mean radius is 6,371 km. Venus' mean radius is 6052 km.
The masses are also similar, as are their compositions.
A more likely control on whether plate tectonics may be initiated is the existence of liquid water at the surface and within the lithosphere of the planet in question. Water greatly reduces the yield strength of plates (by as much as 62% when going from low to moderate temperatures compared with a drop of only 39% for dry olivine). So, while plate tectonics seems to be necessary for life, water (necessary for life) may be necessary for plate tectonics. Venus is just at the range from the Sun where it could have lost all of its water too quickly for plate tectonics to initiate (especially if it lost the water long before the planet was mostly still molten).
So, someone represented a company that has different ideas than you do...and that's a problem because? /.ers really believe that their employer is their sole identity defining characteristic?
Do
Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?
It sure seems that that's what you're all saying when you go on these witch-hunts.
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about 10% of a planetary surface and AUs.
Earth's surface area is 5.1x10^8 km^2. 10% of that is, obviously, 5.1x10^7 km^2. The land area of the US is about 9.8x10^6 km^2, so we're talking about 5-times the land area of the US. None of this has anything to do with distance from the star, just to do with the radius of the planet.
But, as you say, the point of 10% isn't that it's a special number; it's a starting point. Notice that this definition explicitly excludes any gaseous planets from the get-go. That's not necessarily fair, of course, but we've got to start somewhere, and rocky planets are a LOT simpler to understand w.r.t. possibilities of life.
Earth's average albedo isn't really all that controversial or problematic. For example, we can say that the poles probably had such and such an albedo at such and such a time (based on climate models based on core samples), the clouds are difficult for a specific times (decades or so), but again the climate will dictate some average cloud cover that is relatively accurate over long periods over the entire Earth.
Going into more detail would require an actual climate model (such as the Hadley model), which doesn't make much sense for extrasolar planets since we know next to nothing about atmospheres (especially their composition) on most extrasolar planets. Of course, we can speculate and use places like Titan, Mars, Venus, Earth, and Triton as jumping-off points for planets that are certain distances from their parent star.
Milankovitch cycles are certainly included in long-term habitability or continuous habitability zone research, but we're really limited by not knowing anything about the obliquity/precession cycles of extra-solar planets, which are quite dependent on specific circumstances of those planets.
The T-tauri phase of the pre-main sequence stars would strip almost any magnetic field-protected atmosphere from most planets, so we're fairly confident that any planets found orbiting such stars are uninhabitable. In fact, there are a lot of stars that can be ruled out (of having any sort of habitable zone) just by looking at them.
Habitability zones are for "well-behaved" stars with well-behaved planets. Some researchers are looking at double or triple star systems, so we'll have a better understanding of the possibility of life in such systems as time goes on.
I had expected this kind of troll from Timothy, but CmdrTaco?
WTF?
Yes, the moon is within the habitable zone, but it's not habitable. If we discover a rocky planet in the habitable zone of another star, the first thing we'll be looking for is an atmosphere (which is quite a bit more difficult than finding the planet, but techniques are being developed and tested). If we discover evidence for an atmosphere, the habitability of that planet jumps into a realm that is much more interesting. Then we start looking for evidence of certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, Nitrogen, etc.).
Well, first, let's go into some history.
A habitable zone around a main sequence star was originally (1959) defined as a (virtual) ring around that star in which at least 10% of the surface of a planet, with an Earth-like atmosphere, in that zone had a mean temperature of between 0 and 30 C with extremes not exceeding -10 and 40 C. This is appropriate for humans to survive.
The zone was quickly expanded to mean wherever liquid water was stable. The term "biostable" was employed to mean where liquid water was stable and the term "habitable" was restricted to mean a place suitable for humans. Soon, though, "habitable" was expanded to replace "biostable" and to include anywhere that liquid water is stable.
All (peer-reviewed) models since the original definition have used one type of atmosphere or another, usually an atmosphere chemically similar to Earth's. Most have also considered planetary albedo (surface brightness), solar evolution (as a star moves along the main sequence, the habitable zone changes or disappears, depending on the details), etc.
Several models have pessimistic estimates to the width and/or lifetime of a habitable zone, most often because an atmosphere like the Earth's is only metastable and it could collapse with only a few % change in solar energy input (distance from or luminosity of the sun, for example can greatly affect the stability of an atmosphere). Other models have included climate stabilization by linking CO2 and surface processes such as the creation/weathering of certain types of rock that remove/add CO2 from/to the atmosphere. There are a lot of these kinds of details that are included in most models of the habitable zone. A lot of the work is in determining which details are more important than others.
For my graduate work, we had to define the habitable zone around the sun, at the beginning of the solar system (4.556 Ga), and now. To do so, we had to start from the proplyd, condense all of the elements at the right distances from the sun, build the planets (we were allowed to assume that they formed in their current positions unless we wanted to make our work more difficult), allow atmospheres to condense or form, depending on where the planets were, etc., and finally determine which planets were possibly in the habitable zone as the sun evolved (Venus, Earth, and Mars, depending on the details and assumptions), and then determine whether the planets that are here now are in the habitable zone, and why or why not.
We, of course, used some pretty simple 1-D models for atmosphere, or used published models and argued why they were valid. We used simple models for planetary albedo, didn't evolve the albedo unless the atmosphere collapsed or changed dramatically in some other way (ignored Earth-like clouds, for example), etc. We used simple estimates for the concentrations of radioactive elements that could contribute to the surface temperature, used a simple model for luminosity evolution, etc., etc., etc.
For these kinds of simple models, the inner edge of the habitable zone is defined by when water will be lost from the atmosphere (through photolysis of the water vapor and escape of the hydrogen) and the outer edge is defined by when CO2 condenses and causes runaway glaciation.
Technically, the Moon is within the habitable zone, but it's obviously not habitable. Neither are Venus or Mars. This is because they don't have the right atmosphere, and may never have had the right conditions.
I make no guarantees to that assertion's applicability other than in the context in which it was originally intended.
The "holy grail" (so to speak) right now is finding evidence for ANY life outside of our planet. Doing so would change our relationship with the universe in many ways (even though most relevant scientists are much less agnostic than they should be when it comes to the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe). Once we find life in one place not on Earth, we'll be much more open to the idea of looking all over for it and for other forms of life than what we're familiar with. So, until that first goal is achieved, we'll look where we think we're most likely to find life.
.. not my favorite term, but a way to derive it in front of astrophysics students is to assume a planetary body, no atmosphere,
In my graduate studies, we defined and derived it with and without an atmosphere.
Oh, you're not "very wrong."
We can only recognize life as we already understand it. A common medical exam question is to define life. A common graduate school exam question is to define life. How do we do that? Based on what we know.
We know that life (as-we-know-it) requires a few conditions, so we look for planets that could support those conditions.
Nobody thinks that's the only place to find life, but it's probably the easiest place to find life that we would understand...
They mean its proximity to the sun, the so-called "habitable zone" that everybody wants to talk about, regardless of the type of planet.
I presume you're complaining about the article linked to by Slashdot. That's not a scientific article; that's a popular science article.
Here's NASA's report, which isn't much better. I can't find the actual journal article yet.
www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/rocky_planet.html
The Roche limit is defined as:
d = R ( 2 rhoM/rhom) ^ (1/3).
d is the orbital distance.
R is the primary (star in this case) radius.
rhoM is the primary's density.
rhom is the satellite's density.
If rhom > 2 rhoM, d is inside the radius of the primary.
The star in question is similar to ours, so I'll use our sun's density: 1.4 g/cm^3
The planet's density is 8.8 g/cm^3.
Therefore, the roche limit is within the star's radius and the planet will not be ripped apart.
This presumes a nearly circular orbit, which is good enough for this case.
Yes. Mostly. For this (transit photometry) method.
There are several methods of finding an extrasolar planet.
Briefly:
1) Pulsar variations: If a planet orbits a pulsar, the pulsar's timing will vary in a manner that can be detected by us, and we can use 3-D trig to figure out relevant parameters such as mass and radial distance.
2) Doppler shift of a star's emission lines: If a planet orbits a solar-type star, we can use the star's doppler shift of certain spectra to determine the various parameters of the body (or bodies) orbiting the star.
3) Gravitational microlensing: If two stars align just right to create a microlensing effect, the star further from us will show up as several images or as an Einstein ring, and its brightness will be amplified. If there's a planet orbiting the star that's closer to us, those mirror images or the ring will change with time, and they will be a bit brighter than without the planet.
4) Astrometry (measurements of the variation of a star's position relative to the "plane of the sky"): If there's a massive planet with an eccentric orbit, the star will orbit a barycenter that's outside of its mass, causing the star to move relative to the background.
5) Direct imaging: with certain techniques for processing stellar imagery, we can detect whether or not there's a planet reflecting some of that star's light to us.
6) Transit photometry: observing the star's brightness decrease as the planet eclipses the star. This works best for planets with a perfect orbital alignment with us, but we can still detect and work out minimum values for the relevant parameters.
7) Radio flux: Certain jovian-type planets can emit radio fluxes that differ significantly from most stars. These fluxes can be difficult, though not impossible, to detect from the interstellar noise.
There are more methods...
1) These images are not photoshopped (at least not the ones on uahirise.org). If you knew anything about remote sensing, CCD sensors, image processing, or science, you'd know that.
http://www.uahirise.org/pdf/color-products.pdf [uahirise.org]
Have you actually read that PDF?
(My emphasis)
"PSP_005000_1000_RGB.NOMAP.JP2 3-color image consisting of RED, BG, and synthetic blue images. The BG image has been warped to line up with the RED.NOMAP image. The BG (blue-green) bandpass primarily accepts green light. The synthetic blue image digital numbers (DNs) consist of the BG image DN multiplied by 2 minus 30% of the RED image DN for each pixel. This is not unique data, but provides a more
appealing way to display the color variations present in just two bandpasses, RED and BG."
"For the Extras products, each color band is individually stretched to maximize contrast, so the colors are enhanced differently for each image based on the color and brightness of each scene. Scenes with dark shadows and bright sunlit slopes or with both bright and dark materials are stretched less, so the colors are less enhanced than is the case over bland scenes."
Whether one uses Photoshop or other software to enhance images to become more pleasing or effectful, it's generally called photoshopping.
Mars may look rather dull compared to Earth, and there's not much light there. But I'd much rather see things as they are, and the IR imagery displayed separately (preferably as black/white, as is traditional as it doesn't give any false impressions that it's visible light). That would be much more impressing than artificial colour "enhancements" and contrast stretching individual colour bands to make the images appear more colourful.
In many ways, exaggerating space images that are already impressive because they are from space to make more of an impact on the public isn't much different from photoshopping people to make their eyes bluer, lips redder, teeth whiter, and wrinkles less visible.
You CANNOT "see things as they are" with the HiRISE images.
1) Does your monitor display Infrared?
2) Does your monitor display "red" with the same bandpass that the HiRISE detectors are sensitive to?
3) Does your monitor display the bluegreen that HiRISE is sensitive to?
4) Are your eyes sensitive, in the same way as the HiRISE detectors, to the same bandpasses as the HiRISE detectors?
No.
5) It simply isn't "traditional" to show IR or other non-visible wavelength data as a separate grayscale image. Take a look at Hubble images.
6) The difference between photoshopping and processing these images is: a) there's documentation on exactly how it's done, and why, b) the "original--whatever that means" images are available to anyone who actually has an interest in the imagery rather than complaining about scientists.
7) Mars doesn't look dull compared with Earth. The bandpasses were chosen for science. The public images are just that, to excite the public. If you want to do science, then go to the original source. If you want to look at pretty pictures, then look at the pretty pictures.
What, precisely, would you like to see?
Would you like to see the raw numbers that come out of the detectors? Those won't do you much good since you clearly don't know anything about Mars science or remote sensing. Some amount of the "signal" is actually generated by the instrument. In addition, some amount of the "signal" is due to heat generated by the spacecraft, other instruments, etc. If you would like to see the raw data, go here:
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/
Those raw data