Since not giving them telescope time had to happen before they'd actually done the observations, and therefore the TAC (Time Allocation Committee, that allocates the telescope time for a given telescope) doesn't know yet what the results are going to be, the decision had to be based on the planned observations.;-) The Australian team didn't know when they planned the observations that they were going to find a structure bigger than predicted by CDM models.
You know, not reading the article is fine, but I'm not sure you even read the bit that you quoted.
"The team were refused time on a US telescope because many American astronomers believed the observations were technically impossible."
This has nothing to do with theory. It has to do with trying to take very deep spectra of a whole lot of very faint objects spread over a relatively large area of sky. It's really hard.
What can be proven outside the voting booth is that the vote was valid and counted in the process. What the actual vote was cannot be proven without releasing every audit step... and part of the paradigm is that half of the audit steps are released.
Patrick Scholes, an investment banker at Morgan Keegan & Co. who advises SCO, says that on Oct. 9 he spoke by phone with Mitch Singer, a senior vice president at Sony Pictures, broaching the fact that Hollywood companies use a lot of Linux. Scholes says Singer understood the implication. "He said, Okay, I can read between the lines,'" Scholes recalls.
Translation: "Hey, that's a nice server farm you've got there. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it, would you?"
[TMB]
Re:Read Roger Angel's testimony...
on
The Case for the Moon
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(I am an astronomer at UofA)
1) Yup. Mercury doesn't do it. He's been looking at liquids with very low vapour pressure, and he's found one he likes. The problems is that it isn't reflective. So now he's trying to figure out how to aluminize a liquid... should be pretty cool to see what he comes up with.
2) The centrifugal force is what gives the mirror the correct parabolic shape. It's not a problem, it's an asset!
3-4) see 2)
5) Yes, it'll be expensive, on the scale of telescopes (Roger's best estimate is currently $100 billion). But the cost of getting back to the moon will be larger, so it's not the biggest part of the budget.
And your last statement is wrong. IR is probably easier than optical for this (you don't need to get the surface quite as accurate), and is much better suited to the science they want out of it (due to redshift, the light from the first stars is way out in the infrared, not in the optical).
Also, more science is done in the optical than in the radio... I'm looking at the table of contents of the current issue of the Astrophysical Journal, and out of the 53 articles, here's the breakdown by what part of the electromagnetic spectrum they use: Radio: 7 (1 of which used other data too) Infrared: 6 (2 of which used other data too) Optical: 19 (5 of which used other data too) Ultraviolet: 3 (2 of which used other data too) X-ray: 7 (1 of which used other data too) Gamma-ray: 2 Theory (no data): 16
This is a silly comparison... I've never seen a CD single that contains fewer than 2 tracks, with 4-5 being most common. So 4 million singles = 16-20 million tracks, compared with 7.7 million tracks downloaded. Getting impressive, but still not quite there.
In other words, the green house effect may very well be *mostly* caused by the Sun, rather than CO2 in the atmosphere.
You know, I kind of doubt that, given that the DEFINITION of the greenhouse effect is THE TRAPPING OF HEAT BY CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE!
It's kind of like saying "Flat tires may very well be mostly caused by malfunctioning brakes, rather than not having any air in the tires." A flat tire can't be caused by anything other than not having air in the tires - that's what makes it a flat tire. Similarly, the greenhouse effect can't be caused by anything other than CO2 in the atmosphere - that's what makes it the greenhouse effect.
Is there a list of participating labels for iTMS? The closest I could find was this sentence from the front page: " The iTunes Music Store features hundreds of thousands of songs from major music companies including BMG, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. -- plus over 100,000 new tracks from independent artists and record labels." There are a few independent labels that I care a lot about, but I can't find any way of finding out if they're included or not. Anyone know?
Alternately, is there some way of searching the store without having an account?
(and on a different note, has anyone gotten iTunes working under Wine yet?)
Could someone translate that newsgroup post into English? I'm sure it makes sense if you're deeply involved in the case, but if you're not it's a little on the opaque side of black.
Actually, they don't own any of the copyright. That's what makes it really silly. In most cases, the copyright is owned by the individual record company.
Slashdot Mirror
OT: You're the guy who created KMFMS? Cool... my mouse is resting on the KMFMS mousepad as I type. :-)=
[TMB]
I think you mean 24.6.0.1... ;-)
[TMB]
MOD PARENT UP!!!!
I'm in pain I'm laughing too hard...
[TMB]
JWST will not do UV. The loss of COS is going to be devastating.
[TMB]
Since not giving them telescope time had to happen before they'd actually done the observations, and therefore the TAC (Time Allocation Committee, that allocates the telescope time for a given telescope) doesn't know yet what the results are going to be, the decision had to be based on the planned observations. ;-) The Australian team didn't know when they planned the observations that they were going to find a structure bigger than predicted by CDM models.
[TMB]
You know, not reading the article is fine, but I'm not sure you even read the bit that you quoted.
"The team were refused time on a US telescope because many American astronomers believed the observations were technically impossible."
This has nothing to do with theory. It has to do with trying to take very deep spectra of a whole lot of very faint objects spread over a relatively large area of sky. It's really hard.
[TMB]
Yours might. Mine doesn't. Here's to community radio!
[TMB]
They are talking about it, actually. :-)=
[TMB]
I think they forgot "bad grammar" among the evils that the Internet needs to be saved from.
[TMB]
'89 Honda Civic, dark blue. :)
That's my car! :)
[TMB]
Damn, that means that I'll eventually have to stop slacking off.
[TMB]
RT rest of the FA
By "checking", he means "checking for validity". Not "finding out who you voted for".
[TMB]
What can be proven outside the voting booth is that the vote was valid and counted in the process. What the actual vote was cannot be proven without releasing every audit step... and part of the paradigm is that half of the audit steps are released.
[TMB]
I've got one of those on my car. :) Seems a more appropriate place for one...
I regularly run several day computations. If I could lop half a day off of that, I'd be very happy.
[TMB]
When did you get this? I am an artist with several mp3s up on my mp3.com site, and this /. article is the first I heard of it!
[TMB]
Anyone else get a kick out of this bit?
Translation: "Hey, that's a nice server farm you've got there. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it, would you?"
[TMB]
(I am an astronomer at UofA)
1) Yup. Mercury doesn't do it. He's been looking at liquids with very low vapour pressure, and he's found one he likes. The problems is that it isn't reflective. So now he's trying to figure out how to aluminize a liquid... should be pretty cool to see what he comes up with.
2) The centrifugal force is what gives the mirror the correct parabolic shape. It's not a problem, it's an asset!
3-4) see 2)
5) Yes, it'll be expensive, on the scale of telescopes (Roger's best estimate is currently $100 billion). But the cost of getting back to the moon will be larger, so it's not the biggest part of the budget.
And your last statement is wrong. IR is probably easier than optical for this (you don't need to get the surface quite as accurate), and is much better suited to the science they want out of it (due to redshift, the light from the first stars is way out in the infrared, not in the optical).
Also, more science is done in the optical than in the radio... I'm looking at the table of contents of the current issue of the Astrophysical Journal, and out of the 53 articles, here's the breakdown by what part of the electromagnetic spectrum they use:
Radio: 7 (1 of which used other data too)
Infrared: 6 (2 of which used other data too)
Optical: 19 (5 of which used other data too)
Ultraviolet: 3 (2 of which used other data too)
X-ray: 7 (1 of which used other data too)
Gamma-ray: 2
Theory (no data): 16
[TMB]
This is a silly comparison... I've never seen a CD single that contains fewer than 2 tracks, with 4-5 being most common. So 4 million singles = 16-20 million tracks, compared with 7.7 million tracks downloaded. Getting impressive, but still not quite there.
[TMB]
You know, I kind of doubt that, given that the DEFINITION of the greenhouse effect is THE TRAPPING OF HEAT BY CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE!
It's kind of like saying "Flat tires may very well be mostly caused by malfunctioning brakes, rather than not having any air in the tires." A flat tire can't be caused by anything other than not having air in the tires - that's what makes it a flat tire. Similarly, the greenhouse effect can't be caused by anything other than CO2 in the atmosphere - that's what makes it the greenhouse effect.
[TMB]
Ah, but the difference between "putting an X in the box" and "poking a little hole in a piece of paper" were exposed in gory detail in 2000.
[TMB]
Is there a list of participating labels for iTMS? The closest I could find was this sentence from the front page: " The iTunes Music Store features hundreds of thousands of songs from major music companies including BMG, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. -- plus over 100,000 new tracks from independent artists and record labels." There are a few independent labels that I care a lot about, but I can't find any way of finding out if they're included or not. Anyone know?
Alternately, is there some way of searching the store without having an account?
(and on a different note, has anyone gotten iTunes working under Wine yet?)
[TMB]
Could someone translate that newsgroup post into English? I'm sure it makes sense if you're deeply involved in the case, but if you're not it's a little on the opaque side of black.
Actually, they don't own any of the copyright. That's what makes it really silly. In most cases, the copyright is owned by the individual record company.