It is becoming more and more common in science to see resumes that list the honors one has been offerred, but for some reason the recipient denied them.
An example of this is in post-doctoral fellowships, which are generally quite prestigious. A person may only accept one at a time (it isn't considered fair to recieve double income for the same work, and it helps to spread the wealth), so one lists the fellowship accepted, and all the others that one turned down. I've come across several resumes that read: "Hubble Fellow, 2001" "Chandra Fellowship, 2001, denied" "Jansky Fellowship, 2001, denied" etc.
You'd think that just being a Hubble Fellow would be enough to convince people that you're a top-level scientist. We're just one step away from: "Would have recieved Hubble Fellowship, 2001, had I not been too lazy to write a good essay." or "Deserved Chandra Fellowship, 2001, but some jerk on the committee thought otherwise!"
On another note, I've also seen people list "invited talks", in which they had invited themselves, or were obligated to give the talk as part of a class.
I couldn't find the price of one of these anywhere on the website. Does anyone know how much they'll cost (including the $5 "deposit" (rebate) for something that is supposed to be disposable--a $5 bill certainly isn't disposable for most of us!)?
Can we get the:
1. names,
2. home phone numbers,
3. office phone numbers,
4. cell phone numbers,
5. websites
of the judges (and Lawyers) responsible for killing the do not call list?
I work with his college roommate (when the two went to U Chicago). They built a fission breeder reactor in their dorm room as part of the on campus "scanvenger hunt" contest.
The hybrids are pretty much the same except they suffer heavy batteries, gain regenerative braking and have smaller lighter IC engines.
There are many other factors that make hybrids more fuel efficient.
For example, they run at roughly constant RPM, with continuously-variable transmissions. Standard cars are unable to do this because of torque requirements--accelerating requires higher torque (higher rpms) than coasting. Electric motors are high torque. When one needs to accelerate, the car simply engages the electric engine for the extra oomph.
The $2.13 rual applies only to in-store wait-staff, not to drivers. Drivers must be paid full minimum-wage. Thus, that pizza-delivery person earns ~$6/hour PLUS tips (often another $10/hour). Remember that the next time the driver makes a comment about your $2 delivery tip being too low.
The previous comment only listed space-based interferometers, though the question may have been in regards to some ground-based ones:
Keck Interferometer: http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/Keck/keck_index.ht ml
VLTI: http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
OHANA: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~lai/ohana.html
Large Binocular Telescope: http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbtwww/lbt.html
Or, for a more complete listing: http://olbin.jpl.nasa.gov/links/index.html
I'm not sure what was meant by "Large Interferometer telescope", there are many with names close to that, as listed above, but not exactly. The closest is probably the LBT.
In the previous comment, note that LISA is not a photon detector, but rather gravitational wave detector.
As for status, LBT is under construction, Keck and VLTI have the first results out, I'm not sure about OHANA.
I heard somewhere that the newer ground-based optical telescope with adaptive optics can equal or exceed the Hubble's resolution.
This is true, with limitations:
1. Adaptive optics requires a bright star in the field of view, limiting the amount of sky coverage possible. While every generation of adaptive optics improves in how faint this "guide star" is, we are still in the early stages of engineering.
2. As an alternative to 1, an artificial, laser guide star can be used. Again, these are in only the earliest stages of engineering. Further, there are concerns such as the interaction of such lasers with aircraft/pilots.
3. Adaptive optics works better in the Near-Infrared than at visible wavelengths. To obtain fully diffraction limited images, most AO telescopes cannot operate in V.
4. Sensitivity. By escaping the earth's atmosphere, one can gain much more sensitivity on the whole. One can "see deeper". This is the fundamental limit of ground-based astronomy, and is why it is unlikely that any amount of engineering will compensate for not being in space.
5. Precision. The earth's atmosphere also limits the precision of many measurements, such as photometry. As an example, look at Charbonneau's results with Hubble studying a transitting extrasolar planet. This precision could not be done from the ground, AO or not.
Popular story here. Original paper here.
Light pollution is certainly a very serious issue. I'm an astronomer currently observing at Mt. Palomar (located between LA and San Diego). Walking outside right now, I can see what appear to be two "domes of light" from the directions of both cities. Some of the observing programs are starting to feel the effects. Palomar is over 100 miles from either city--just having a "buffer zone" is not enough.
As a final comment, there has been repeated discussion questioning the effects light has on sleep quality. Astronomers have a long record of evidence that daytime sleep quality is much less than that at night, unless measures are taken to completely block intruding light. We put a lot of effort into blocking daylight from rooms in which we sleep during observation runs, specifically to combat this effect.
Slashdot Mirror
It is becoming more and more common in science to see resumes that list the honors one has been offerred, but for some reason the recipient denied them.
An example of this is in post-doctoral fellowships, which are generally quite prestigious. A person may only accept one at a time (it isn't considered fair to recieve double income for the same work, and it helps to spread the wealth), so one lists the fellowship accepted, and all the others that one turned down. I've come across several resumes that read:
"Hubble Fellow, 2001"
"Chandra Fellowship, 2001, denied"
"Jansky Fellowship, 2001, denied"
etc.
You'd think that just being a Hubble Fellow would be enough to convince people that you're a top-level scientist. We're just one step away from:
"Would have recieved Hubble Fellowship, 2001, had I not been too lazy to write a good essay."
or
"Deserved Chandra Fellowship, 2001, but some jerk on the committee thought otherwise!"
On another note, I've also seen people list "invited talks", in which they had invited themselves, or were obligated to give the talk as part of a class.
The site says the lego WTC was "accidentally" knocked over and broken in April 2001.
Disturbing foreshadowing, or practice?
I couldn't find the price of one of these anywhere on the website. Does anyone know how much they'll cost (including the $5 "deposit" (rebate) for something that is supposed to be disposable--a $5 bill certainly isn't disposable for most of us!)?
White House's reasons for going to war in Iraq questioned.
Slashdot reader's claim of getting laid questioned.
Congress's reasons for impeaching Clinton questioned.
Kobe Bryant's marital fidelity questioned.
California's decision to elect a guy with big muscles questioned.
MIT's dedication to providing affordable healthcare to its grad students questioned.
Lucas's decision to overuse Jar-Jar in Ep 1 questioned.
Can we get the:
1. names,
2. home phone numbers,
3. office phone numbers,
4. cell phone numbers,
5. websites
of the judges (and Lawyers) responsible for killing the do not call list?
This guy doesn't even give credit to vi's predecessors.
You know, i, ii, iii, iv, and v.
I work with his college roommate (when the two went to U Chicago). They built a fission breeder reactor in their dorm room as part of the on campus "scanvenger hunt" contest.
Let the jokes about windows powered computers begin.... I'll start: I want to be the first to have a "linux box powered by windows".
The hybrids are pretty much the same except they suffer heavy batteries, gain regenerative braking and have smaller lighter IC engines.
There are many other factors that make hybrids more fuel efficient.
For example, they run at roughly constant RPM, with continuously-variable transmissions. Standard cars are unable to do this because of torque requirements--accelerating requires higher torque (higher rpms) than coasting. Electric motors are high torque. When one needs to accelerate, the car simply engages the electric engine for the extra oomph.
The $2.13 rual applies only to in-store wait-staff, not to drivers. Drivers must be paid full minimum-wage. Thus, that pizza-delivery person earns ~$6/hour PLUS tips (often another $10/hour). Remember that the next time the driver makes a comment about your $2 delivery tip being too low.
I know that I'm probably going to get flamed by the /. faithful...
You're right.
The previous comment only listed space-based interferometers, though the question may have been in regards to some ground-based ones:
t ml
Keck Interferometer: http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/Keck/keck_index.h
VLTI: http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
OHANA: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~lai/ohana.html
Large Binocular Telescope: http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbtwww/lbt.html
Or, for a more complete listing: http://olbin.jpl.nasa.gov/links/index.html
I'm not sure what was meant by "Large Interferometer telescope", there are many with names close to that, as listed above, but not exactly. The closest is probably the LBT.
In the previous comment, note that LISA is not a photon detector, but rather gravitational wave detector.
As for status, LBT is under construction, Keck and VLTI have the first results out, I'm not sure about OHANA.
I heard somewhere that the newer ground-based optical telescope with adaptive optics can equal or exceed the Hubble's resolution.
This is true, with limitations:
1. Adaptive optics requires a bright star in the field of view, limiting the amount of sky coverage possible. While every generation of adaptive optics improves in how faint this "guide star" is, we are still in the early stages of engineering.
2. As an alternative to 1, an artificial, laser guide star can be used. Again, these are in only the earliest stages of engineering. Further, there are concerns such as the interaction of such lasers with aircraft/pilots.
3. Adaptive optics works better in the Near-Infrared than at visible wavelengths. To obtain fully diffraction limited images, most AO telescopes cannot operate in V.
4. Sensitivity. By escaping the earth's atmosphere, one can gain much more sensitivity on the whole. One can "see deeper". This is the fundamental limit of ground-based astronomy, and is why it is unlikely that any amount of engineering will compensate for not being in space.
5. Precision. The earth's atmosphere also limits the precision of many measurements, such as photometry. As an example, look at Charbonneau's results with Hubble studying a transitting extrasolar planet. This precision could not be done from the ground, AO or not. Popular story here. Original paper here.
Dear Strongbad,
How do you type at a beowulf cluster with boxing gloves on your hands?
Or is that just the length of time since the last stable release?
Add a single curl of hair in the middle of your forehead. Nobody will be able to detect your true identity.
How about for the consummation?
As a final comment, there has been repeated discussion questioning the effects light has on sleep quality. Astronomers have a long record of evidence that daytime sleep quality is much less than that at night, unless measures are taken to completely block intruding light. We put a lot of effort into blocking daylight from rooms in which we sleep during observation runs, specifically to combat this effect.