Superman vs. superman. Superman clearly refers to Clark Kent's night (and sometimes) day job, while superman is, according to American Heritage, "A man with more than human powers" which began with Nietsche, not with comic books.
How can you trademark a single dictionary word? I can understand if it's a phrase, but a single dictionary word? Granted, xerox is in the dictionary, but it is made plain that it is a trademark that has wound its way into the vernacular. I think Marvel and DC's claim to superhero is flawed and unfounded. But the voice of reason is often all to silent in a litigous society.
Ground-based telescope systems are actually important, contrary to popular/. opinion. For example, Swift takes about a minute to slew its Ultraviolet and Optical Telescope (UVOT) to a gamma ray burst (GRB). When Swift first triggers on a GRB, it sends that information to the ground, which is then sent throughout the world to astronomers and robotic telescope systems alike. Those robotic systems are then observing the GRB (provided that it's night and not raining at the telescope's location) within a few seconds of Swift triggering on the GRB. Thus, they are able to observe the *early* optical and infrared afterglow, while Swift is still slewing to the GRB.
There are also cataclysmic variable surveys, transient surveys, and other uses of the robotic systems when they're not pursuing GRBs. These are far easier and cheaper to develop and deploy than space-based telescopes. Each mission has it's limitations, but there is good science to be done by each. Thinking Telescopes has more information about robotic systems and the software behind them.
So yes, the days of a professional astronomer staring through a telescope to study the stars is probably long over. But that does not mean that ground systems are obsolete or outdated. Hell with the budget cannibalization going on at NASA, astronomers are going to loose the largest means of space based missions: Explorers. So when we can't launch into space, we'll build on the ground or make balloon experiments to observe in energies that are blocked by the ozone (amazingly enough, these are still done).
And the picture they use in the bloody article is a RADIO telescope! Radio really isn't affected by contrails or climate change! The biggest concern is in the optical to infrared ranges, where the moisture and clouds do the most damage to light (diffraction, reflection, etc). Radio and microwave suffer most from cell phones, gps units, radio and television broadcasting, etc. That's why radio observatories are out in the middle of *no where*.
Real math + actual physics + nifty visualization = people actually learning something! *shocking!*
I helped design an astronomy exhibit for a local science museum, and the process you go through in order to make it accessible to the public is mind boggling. Especially when you try to show more than just pretty pictures, but the science behind those pictures.
One question though, does anyone know what variable the simulation was using colors for? Was it temperature (most likely), or something more exotic?
Los Alamos has a very robust summer internship program that is entirely focused on the student learning something new, rather than be oriented towards what the student can produce. www.lanl.gov/education
I started there the summer after my freshman year, and I loved every moment of it. There's a reason why this summer is going to be my fourth one there.
It was because of the story in FFX that I actually decided to pick up a controller and start playing games (first time since Tetris), instead of watching my brother do it all.
Since then, I've been hooked on playing games just to get to the story. Neverwinter Nights? Played because of the story. Warcraft 3? Played because of the story.
I can put down a game with fantastic graphics and great gameplay, but if it doesn't have a story, I'll probably get bored with it fairly quicky and not pick it up ever again. There has to be *some* reason to go through 40+ hours of play.
If you can gaze up into the night sky, and stare with amazement at the stars for hours, then you should be an astronomer.
If you wonder how things tick, how electrons really work and what exactly goes on at scales smaller than an atom, then you should be a particle physicist.
If you *LOVE* learning, and have an insatiable curiosity about the world around you, you should become a scientist. PERIOD.
It's not about intelligence (though it helps), it's not about hard work (though that's crucial), it's about loving what you do and spending everyday of your life doing it.
I've been working at Los Alamos National Laboratory for about 10 months total. I wouldn't have been able to make it this far if I didn't love what I do. I'm a woman, I'm a geek, and I'm a scientist.
There is a place for a publicity campaign. And it's absolutely needed in the US.
Not because it would bring "undesirables" into science, but because a lot of young girls need that push of "hey you're really good at math/physics/chemistry/etc, why don't you study that?" I had a lot of support along the way (SWE, my parents, my teachers). I don't see that same aid, that same "Women can be scientists" attitude prevalent amongst parents now. I see the "follow the crowd and be popular" attitude waay to much to be comfortable. And it's damning for the future of science.
DRM is a last ditch effort by those clinging to a dying business model. Those who have never been accustomed to working for their money (MPAA, RIAA) are the ones running terrified to DRMs and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Superman vs. superman. Superman clearly refers to Clark Kent's night (and sometimes) day job, while superman is, according to American Heritage, "A man with more than human powers" which began with Nietsche, not with comic books.
How can you trademark a single dictionary word? I can understand if it's a phrase, but a single dictionary word? Granted, xerox is in the dictionary, but it is made plain that it is a trademark that has wound its way into the vernacular. I think Marvel and DC's claim to superhero is flawed and unfounded. But the voice of reason is often all to silent in a litigous society.
Ground-based telescope systems are actually important, contrary to popular /. opinion. For example, Swift takes about a minute to slew its Ultraviolet and Optical Telescope (UVOT) to a gamma ray burst (GRB). When Swift first triggers on a GRB, it sends that information to the ground, which is then sent throughout the world to astronomers and robotic telescope systems alike. Those robotic systems are then observing the GRB (provided that it's night and not raining at the telescope's location) within a few seconds of Swift triggering on the GRB. Thus, they are able to observe the *early* optical and infrared afterglow, while Swift is still slewing to the GRB.
There are also cataclysmic variable surveys, transient surveys, and other uses of the robotic systems when they're not pursuing GRBs. These are far easier and cheaper to develop and deploy than space-based telescopes. Each mission has it's limitations, but there is good science to be done by each. Thinking Telescopes has more information about robotic systems and the software behind them.
So yes, the days of a professional astronomer staring through a telescope to study the stars is probably long over. But that does not mean that ground systems are obsolete or outdated. Hell with the budget cannibalization going on at NASA, astronomers are going to loose the largest means of space based missions: Explorers. So when we can't launch into space, we'll build on the ground or make balloon experiments to observe in energies that are blocked by the ozone (amazingly enough, these are still done).
And the picture they use in the bloody article is a RADIO telescope! Radio really isn't affected by contrails or climate change! The biggest concern is in the optical to infrared ranges, where the moisture and clouds do the most damage to light (diffraction, reflection, etc). Radio and microwave suffer most from cell phones, gps units, radio and television broadcasting, etc. That's why radio observatories are out in the middle of *no where*.
Real math + actual physics + nifty visualization = people actually learning something! *shocking!*
I helped design an astronomy exhibit for a local science museum, and the process you go through in order to make it accessible to the public is mind boggling. Especially when you try to show more than just pretty pictures, but the science behind those pictures.
One question though, does anyone know what variable the simulation was using colors for? Was it temperature (most likely), or something more exotic?
Los Alamos has a very robust summer internship program that is entirely focused on the student learning something new, rather than be oriented towards what the student can produce. www.lanl.gov/education
I started there the summer after my freshman year, and I loved every moment of it. There's a reason why this summer is going to be my fourth one there.
It was because of the story in FFX that I actually decided to pick up a controller and start playing games (first time since Tetris), instead of watching my brother do it all.
Since then, I've been hooked on playing games just to get to the story. Neverwinter Nights? Played because of the story. Warcraft 3? Played because of the story.
I can put down a game with fantastic graphics and great gameplay, but if it doesn't have a story, I'll probably get bored with it fairly quicky and not pick it up ever again. There has to be *some* reason to go through 40+ hours of play.
If you can gaze up into the night sky, and stare with amazement at the stars for hours, then you should be an astronomer.
If you wonder how things tick, how electrons really work and what exactly goes on at scales smaller than an atom, then you should be a particle physicist.
If you *LOVE* learning, and have an insatiable curiosity about the world around you, you should become a scientist. PERIOD.
It's not about intelligence (though it helps), it's not about hard work (though that's crucial), it's about loving what you do and spending everyday of your life doing it.
I've been working at Los Alamos National Laboratory for about 10 months total. I wouldn't have been able to make it this far if I didn't love what I do. I'm a woman, I'm a geek, and I'm a scientist.
There is a place for a publicity campaign. And it's absolutely needed in the US.
Not because it would bring "undesirables" into science, but because a lot of young girls need that push of "hey you're really good at math/physics/chemistry/etc, why don't you study that?" I had a lot of support along the way (SWE, my parents, my teachers). I don't see that same aid, that same "Women can be scientists" attitude prevalent amongst parents now. I see the "follow the crowd and be popular" attitude waay to much to be comfortable. And it's damning for the future of science.
DRM is a last ditch effort by those clinging to a dying business model. Those who have never been accustomed to working for their money (MPAA, RIAA) are the ones running terrified to DRMs and the like.
Swift is actually the first satellite to choose its own targets on board and slew to them, without any intervention from the ground.
"All the easier to catch GRBs, my dear."