So, by your standard, astronomy is not a science? Or have you found a way to build a star in the lab by yourself. I must say, you have a nice start what with all of that hot air...
I doubt this is the thinking. The thinking is more likely "prosecutorial" -- that is, unless someone arrested for their
multi-GiB collection of Burmese paedophlic donkey pr0n has
a tax stamp, he can be prosecuted for tax evasion as well.
I remember a similar approach in Texas in the 80's
with drugs; get a tax stamp for your pot, or spend (more) time in
jail. I imagine this will work just as well.
You are technically incorrect. On the info page for each show, below guest stars, writers, and whatnot, is the percentage of disk space used for that recording. SO, if you were desperate or bored enough you could check each one and sum the percentages.
How the heck did NASA put men on the moon in a decade? They did not have a bunch of high tech crap that they have now, it was the ability to take risks.
Well, they did chicken-fry three astronauts on the ground, which led to significant delay in the Apollo program, including (surprise) Congressional hearings. The accident was largely the result of the cowboy risk-taking you endorse. Do that a few times and public support would evaporate like, well, those very astronauts. Oh wait, we did -- NASA cowboyed the Challenger launch over the heads of the engineers who BUILT the damn SRBs, and the scattering of Columbia over my high school in East Texas was at least in part attributable to the same mindset. In short, there's "risk" and then there's "pointless risk". Often hard to tell apart until the inquest.
As for "free" enterprise, if they could do it they'd do it already -- and have the taxpayers subsidize it AND insure it for them. And then they'd be chicken-frying citiesworth of people at no risk to them. After all, why do you think they call it "free" enterprise?
Add ten more logical steps to that and you have Saint Anselm's Ontological Proof of God. At the current rate of one step removed per century, we should be down to "Therefore: God exists" in time for the presidential election of 2072. Thank Buddha I'll be dead by then.
Well, this is technically my bailiwick, so I'll add some clarification.
The poster is right, but incomplete. Most pictures of planetary nebulae are color-coded for convenience rather than to mimic what the eye would see. The light from planetary nebulae emerges at very specific wavelengths, corresponding to whatever ions exist at that place in the nebula. So really you
have two effects: 1) the density of gas at a given place-- more gas means more light; and 2) which ions dominate at that place in the nebula. (Well, OK, there's also 3) the temperature of the gas at that place, but ignore that for this discussion.) Pictures of nebulae are usually filtered to admit only light at one or two of these wavelengths. So, you can have a dense bright region that shows up dark in one of these pictures, because the ions that are bright at that wavelength don't exist in abundance at that point in the nebula.
OK, a little wordy. Consider a typical RGB image. If you split it into the individual frames, you can see where there's no red, or a lot of blue, or a tad green. Of course, if you look at the full image you can already tell: if a place looks very red, the individual frames will show very little blue is green. Where the image is bright white, you expect that all three individual frames will be bright at that point. Pictures of nebulae are no different.
Hope that clarifies rather than confuses.
Bemopolis
Ah, the Commodore PET. It must have been frightening to see, the sight of 20-odd 8th graders milling about a fully stocked computer classroom, plotting the downfall of Carter-era America with their BASIC workbooks, cassette tapes full of awesome Man-fighting code laboriously typed on its Lilliputian keyboard. Had they but known I spent my weekends wielding the knowledge they gave me against the Honeywell CP/M at the nearby university they never would have allowed me to suckle upon their precious monochrome-screened trapezoidal teats.
Good times, good times...
Bemopolis
Re:Some interesting details
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
Please note here, much of this 10% is being reflected. There are people in this thread pointing out how untrue the observations must be because if 10% of the sun's energy was being absorbed by the atmosphere, the Earth would be getting a heck of a lot warmer than it is. Instead, the Earth should be getting 10% brigher from the moon or anywhere else in space. Particulates are reflecting and clouds are forming (which look very bright to me when I fly over them).
You counter-assertion is also fallacious. The only scientific claims in the article are (a) 10% less light gets to the Earth's surface, and (b) this appears not to be due to a drop in the Sun's brightness. Neither of these have any general bearing on the temperature of the Earth, since the fate of that 10% is indeterminate. If it is reflected into space, then the Earth would cool. If instead the atmosphere is absorbing it, the temperature would (in general) remain the same. Regardless, either effect is independent of global warming, since the cause of greenhouse warming (CO2) is not the same as the cause of reflection (particulates). They may, of course, be causally tied; but to assume, claim, or legislate that the effects exactly cancel are based more on the assumptions brought to the facts rather than any conclusions drawn from them.
Bemopolis
Re:10% decrease???
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You are correct -- your meteorology is not that great, and your physics is rusty.
From the Oxford English Dictionary...
gun, v.
2. intr. To shoot with a gun; hence, to make war. to gun for: to shoot for, to go in search of with a gun; also, to go after or in search of; to seek to attack, harm, or destroy (someone).
Hell, he gets credit from me just for not using the word "innovative". Which, after years of reading interviews of Microsoft employees, I can't help but mentally add quote marks.
For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.
And what of those who STILL believe the Earth is the center?
Science isn't perfect -- in fact, it is often ugly. Ideas are often given weights out of proportion to their relative merits. Eventually, however, most good theories get a good hearing. In fact, part of the process is precisely what you find most unsettling -- that the process takes a long time. That "liimitation" keeps us from flailing out of control at the first whiff of a sexy idea with as much scientific merit as the latest Creed CD (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Cold Fusion!)
Given the two choices, I'd rather muddle through with the scientific method than blindly follow millenia-old scratchings found in a desert. Especially when those demanding that following add an OR ELSE to the equation.
P.S. Most of us in astronomy are quite happy with the Big Bang Theory, especially as it explains almost all of the observations. Occam's Razor and all that.
Hubble was SUPPOSED to launch while I was getting my undergraduate astro degree. The shuttle problems of the mid-80's delayed its launch until my graduate work, and the spherical aberration wasn't corrected until after I'd switched grad schools in 1993. My PhD used two Hubble data sets taken in the late 90's, and my post-graduate work
involves yet more Hubble data.
And now, under orders from a White House (filled to bursting with creationists), some nickel and diming paper-pushers are considering frying it like a corn dog at the state fair. And let's not discuss how they are stripping down the James Webb telescope.
So, I guess it makes me feel older. Good run while it lasted though.
NeXT computer was the company Steve Jobs founded after he lost Apple to CEO John Sculley and the rest of the board. It was a failure but a spectacular one, as it introduced several innovations in its GUI. Later on Apple bought NeXT, and with it its code base and Steve Jobs. And with that, the new Mac OS under development (code name Copland) was scrapped, and OS X was built on the NeXT codebase.
All from memory mind you, so hit the salt lick.
Bemopolis
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on -- that song by Utopia wasn't THAT bad...
Bemopolis
So, by your standard, astronomy is not a science? Or have you found a way to build a star in the lab by yourself. I must say, you have a nice start what with all of that hot air...
Bemopolis
I doubt this is the thinking. The thinking is more likely "prosecutorial" -- that is, unless someone arrested for their multi-GiB collection of Burmese paedophlic donkey pr0n has a tax stamp, he can be prosecuted for tax evasion as well.
I remember a similar approach in Texas in the 80's with drugs; get a tax stamp for your pot, or spend (more) time in jail. I imagine this will work just as well.
That is to say, not.
Bemopolis
You are technically incorrect. On the info page for each show, below guest stars, writers, and whatnot, is the percentage of disk space used for that recording. SO, if you were desperate or bored enough you could check each one and sum the percentages.
Not optimal, but it IS a way.
Bemopolis
Jeezuz, if only there were a network of interconnected computers and a way to search them...
http://www.tivo.com/linux/
Sheesh -- If you're going to act like a n00b then give me your lower Slashdot number as bounty.
Bemopolis
Oh yeah, let's cite the Moonies ferchrissakes.
I'll make a deal with you -- I'll believe it when Karl Rove calls me and tells me that agent's name.
Bemopolis
Well, they did chicken-fry three astronauts on the ground, which led to significant delay in the Apollo program, including (surprise) Congressional hearings. The accident was largely the result of the cowboy risk-taking you endorse. Do that a few times and public support would evaporate like, well, those very astronauts. Oh wait, we did -- NASA cowboyed the Challenger launch over the heads of the engineers who BUILT the damn SRBs, and the scattering of Columbia over my high school in East Texas was at least in part attributable to the same mindset.
In short, there's "risk" and then there's "pointless risk". Often hard to tell apart until the inquest.
As for "free" enterprise, if they could do it they'd do it already -- and have the taxpayers subsidize it AND insure it for them. And then they'd be chicken-frying citiesworth of people at no risk to them. After all, why do you think they call it "free" enterprise?
Bemopolis
Ptttth...a REAL Jedi makes his own lightsaber.
Poser.
Bemopolis
link to torrent?
Excuse me, someone's knocking on the door...
Bemopolis
Shouldn't that be de RIGOR?
Bemopolis
Um, you're new to this internet thing, aren't you?
Bemopolis
Add ten more logical steps to that and you have Saint Anselm's Ontological Proof of God.
At the current rate of one step removed per century, we should be down to "Therefore: God exists" in time for the presidential election of 2072. Thank Buddha I'll be dead by then.
Bemopolis
Don't tell him -- tell Indiana...
Bemopolis
No -- it's news for nerds in Hebrew.
Bemopolis
Most universities already have this service -- it's called Business School.
Bemopolis
Well, this is technically my bailiwick, so I'll add some clarification. The poster is right, but incomplete. Most pictures of planetary nebulae are color-coded for convenience rather than to mimic what the eye would see. The light from planetary nebulae emerges at very specific wavelengths, corresponding to whatever ions exist at that place in the nebula. So really you have two effects: 1) the density of gas at a given place-- more gas means more light; and 2) which ions dominate at that place in the nebula. (Well, OK, there's also 3) the temperature of the gas at that place, but ignore that for this discussion.) Pictures of nebulae are usually filtered to admit only light at one or two of these wavelengths. So, you can have a dense bright region that shows up dark in one of these pictures, because the ions that are bright at that wavelength don't exist in abundance at that point in the nebula. OK, a little wordy. Consider a typical RGB image. If you split it into the individual frames, you can see where there's no red, or a lot of blue, or a tad green. Of course, if you look at the full image you can already tell: if a place looks very red, the individual frames will show very little blue is green. Where the image is bright white, you expect that all three individual frames will be bright at that point. Pictures of nebulae are no different. Hope that clarifies rather than confuses. Bemopolis
Ah, the Commodore PET. It must have been frightening to see, the sight of 20-odd 8th graders milling about a fully stocked computer classroom, plotting the downfall of Carter-era America with their BASIC workbooks, cassette tapes full of awesome Man-fighting code laboriously typed on its Lilliputian keyboard. Had they but known I spent my weekends wielding the knowledge they gave me against the Honeywell CP/M at the nearby university they never would have allowed me to suckle upon their precious monochrome-screened trapezoidal teats.
Good times, good times...
Bemopolis
Please note here, much of this 10% is being reflected. There are people in this thread pointing out how untrue the observations must be because if 10% of the sun's energy was being absorbed by the atmosphere, the Earth would be getting a heck of a lot warmer than it is. Instead, the Earth should be getting 10% brigher from the moon or anywhere else in space. Particulates are reflecting and clouds are forming (which look very bright to me when I fly over them).
You counter-assertion is also fallacious. The only scientific claims in the article are (a) 10% less light gets to the Earth's surface, and (b) this appears not to be due to a drop in the Sun's brightness. Neither of these have any general bearing on the temperature of the Earth, since the fate of that 10% is indeterminate. If it is reflected into space, then the Earth would cool. If instead the atmosphere is absorbing it, the temperature would (in general) remain the same. Regardless, either effect is independent of global warming, since the cause of greenhouse warming (CO2) is not the same as the cause of reflection (particulates). They may, of course, be causally tied; but to assume, claim, or legislate that the effects exactly cancel are based more on the assumptions brought to the facts rather than any conclusions drawn from them.
Bemopolis
You are correct -- your meteorology is not that great, and your physics is rusty.
Bemopolis
From the Oxford English Dictionary...
gun, v.
2. intr. To shoot with a gun; hence, to make war. to gun for : to shoot for, to go in search of with a gun; also, to go after or in search of; to seek to attack, harm, or destroy (someone).
Bemopolis
Hell, he gets credit from me just for not using the word "innovative". Which, after years of reading interviews of Microsoft employees, I can't help but mentally add quote marks.
Bemopolis
For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.
And what of those who STILL believe the Earth is the center?
Science isn't perfect -- in fact, it is often ugly. Ideas are often given weights out of proportion to their relative merits. Eventually, however, most good theories get a good hearing. In fact, part of the process is precisely what you find most unsettling -- that the process takes a long time. That "liimitation" keeps us from flailing out of control at the first whiff of a sexy idea with as much scientific merit as the latest Creed CD (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Cold Fusion!)
Given the two choices, I'd rather muddle through with the scientific method than blindly follow millenia-old scratchings found in a desert. Especially when those demanding that following add an OR ELSE to the equation.
P.S. Most of us in astronomy are quite happy with the Big Bang Theory, especially as it explains almost all of the observations. Occam's Razor and all that.
Bemopolis
And now, under orders from a White House (filled to bursting with creationists), some nickel and diming paper-pushers are considering frying it like a corn dog at the state fair. And let's not discuss how they are stripping down the James Webb telescope.
So, I guess it makes me feel older. Good run while it lasted though.
Bemopolis
NeXT computer was the company Steve Jobs founded after he lost Apple to CEO John Sculley and the rest of the board. It was a failure but a spectacular one, as it introduced several innovations in its GUI. Later on Apple bought NeXT, and with it its code base and Steve Jobs. And with that, the new Mac OS under development (code name Copland) was scrapped, and OS X was built on the NeXT codebase.
All from memory mind you, so hit the salt lick.
Bemopolis
It may be bad form to comment on a sig, but the actual Franklin quote is
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin