Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7739 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
I use a.. (Score:5, Funny)
I have a smelloscope, you insensitive clod!
(it had to be done really.)
Re:I use a.. (Score:1)
Re:I use a.. (Score:0)
I have a smelloscope, you insensitive clod!
(it had to be done really.)
My naked eye has z-ray vision.
Z-ray is kinda like X-ray. In fact -- 2 better!
Re:I use a.. (Score:3)
Re:I use a.. (Score:0)
What year is this, 2619?
Google Sky Map (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Google Sky Map (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google Sky Map (Score:2)
Re:Google Sky Map (Score:2)
I tried to install on 64-bit unbuntu and all the menu images were broken, among other things. I think you could praise it a little less.
Re:Google Sky Map (Score:2)
Agreed, google sky map doesn't even have the moons of Jupiter on it.
Re:Google Sky Map (Score:2)
Different purposes. Google Sky Map is there for people that are walking around wanting to know what constellations they're seeing. The folks like me that never bothered to learn to find them. Although these days it's getting harder to see the constellations and find them as you might only be able to see some of the stars.
But, more importantly, it doesn't appear that Stellarium has a mobile version. I personally use Google Sky Map outside where I can actually see some of the stars and planets referred to in the app.
Re:Google Sky Map (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Celestia? Flying around the solar system and beyond is too gimmicky?
Re:Google Sky Map (Score:2)
Horses for courses. Celestia is absolutely wonderful for travelling through the galaxy and beyond, but Stellarium is much better at showing you what is in the sky from the ground. Think of it as an atlas (a very beautiful one) verses a flight simulator.
Swimming preferences (Score:5, Funny)
Totally naked
Scantily dressed (trunks, speedo)
Heavily dressed (wetsuit)
Robotic enclosure (submarine)
Only enough to meet social obligations.
Re:Swimming preferences (Score:2, Interesting)
One can also apply it to Sex:
- Totally Naked (Married, wanting to have kids or just plain irresponsible)
- Scantily Dressed (Shirt, Socks, Condom)
- Heavily dressed (Bondage gear, Chain mail, Swing)
- Robotic Enclosure (If you're old enough to watch ultraporn)
- Only enough to meet social obligations (Your Jewish mother is nagging you to find a girl and get out of her basement).
Re:Swimming preferences (Score:0)
On this case I will change my vote to "Totally naked".
Re:Swimming preferences (Score:2)
Re:Swimming preferences (Score:2)
I voted "Naked Eye" (Score:5, Funny)
But I have to resort to "optical telescope" when watching Natalie Portman. (She's a star, right?)
Re:I voted "Naked Eye" (Score:2)
Re:I voted "Naked Eye" (Score:2)
I'll just turn down the lights and watch the network cards blink on my Beowulf cluster...
Re:I voted "Naked Eye" (Score:2)
Or, as translated into manglish...
Source [jamesthornton.com]
Naked eye & binoculars (Score:1)
except I have been clouded out for the past week or so.
And before that not much was happening and when it was I was clouded out.
I want to buy a telescope but the WAF on that and another guitar is quite low.
Re:Naked eye & binoculars (Score:2)
Yeah, missing option... binoculars are actually a pretty great way to experience a good deal of stargazing. Astronomers like David H. Levy (of Levy-Shoemaker fame) certainly recommends it above even a modest telescope as a good way of catching a good many features, like galaxies and nebulae. And you can even track moving things like airplanes, satellites, ISS transits, etc.. You're also more likely to take it with you when you go traveling or hiking so you can see wildlife, or take it to a concert / theater with you and see the expressions on the performers' faces better than the people in the front row.
Very decent binoculars can be had for about $80 , so go for it. Got much more enjoyment out of it than even a midrange telescope (and all of the cheap telescopes are pretty much worthless toys).
Re:Naked eye & binoculars (Score:1)
I looked at what I needed - at least 12in mirror the minimum of what I want. I could go Dobsonian & save the $ (and get a bigger mirror)
But I want tracking and star finder and stuff. So very much a serious WAF problem.
But I have one half decent pair of binoculars and can get away with another
Re:Naked eye & binoculars (Score:1)
Binoculars are just two low end optical telescopes.
Robotic eye? (Score:2)
Radio telescopes are not robotic eyes, you insenstivie clod.
Even an optical telescope, equipped with a digital camera could fit the evil concept of "robotic eye".
The point is that you need some software for imaging analysis of astronomical images in order to keep the Humans useless.
But then the outcomes of those software would be useless without a Human being(tm) to "understand" them.
YOU INSENSITIVE ROBOTIC CLOD.
With my scantily dressed eye? (Score:4, Funny)
Not the first time something on /. has weirded me out, but it's usually on the comments pages.
So this is what "violated" feels like.
Re:With my scantily dressed eye? (Score:4, Funny)
I like all five. (Score:0)
Next poll: What food do you like? Chips, beans, pizza, lasagne, or toast. Pick one and one only.
Re:I like all five. (Score:3)
These aren't mutually exclusive options, and they don't cover all options.
That's mandatory in order to be listed among all other /. polls.
Re:I like all five. (Score:2)
Stars? In London? (Score:2)
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:0)
Do what I did: emigrate to Canada, outside the big cities the night skies are amazing. Most days I dont see a single contrail either.
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:0)
Yeah, in the western part of the Netherlands you are lucky to maybe see Polaris against a orangey backdrop of light pollution.
Some say there are places where it actually goes dark at night.
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:2)
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:2)
When looking up, I see an average of 2 stars and 5 airplaines, so gave up looking. Would love to go to a place where I can see more though.
It's really incredible how many stars there are, and how infrequently I see them. With all the buildings everywhere, I'm lucky to see the moon.
My parents claim to live in the countryside (in the Midlands), but they're still too close to a city to see any stars.
How far away from London does one need to go? Zone 6? Or further?
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:1)
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:1)
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:2)
I found a good map of light pollution for Great Britain: http://www.avex-asso.org/dossiers/pl/uk/index.html [avex-asso.org]
It doesn't include Sark, but it does include the Western Isles, which look particularly dark (perhaps too dark: there's no light for Stornoway, which seems odd).
Re:Stars? In London? (Score:1)
Laser surgery (Score:1)
I'm thinking about getting my eyes fixed (not just to look at the stars). Can anyone comment on it? Like many /. users I spend a fair amount of time looking at screens. My current prescription isn't terribly strong but I keep my glasses on all the time.
I am a bit concerned about the dangers and how it might affect my work if I get one eye done at a time.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:0)
I went with PRK instead of lasik. Got it done on a friday, and attempted to sleep through the most miserable weekend of my life until the protective lenses were removed on monday. Downsides are that I lost some of my night vision and up close vision (both were better than average before), and because the shape of my eye was change I find myself scratching my eye about once a month but it heals fast enough.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:4, Informative)
The surgery itself is extremely safe. The effects are great, I went from 20/275 in my good eye to 20/15 and am still slightly better than 20/20 in both eyes. What you will notice is a definite impact on night vision. They only correct a narrow circle on your cornea, for most vision, that's no problem, but at night when your iris opens to take in more light, it will open wider than the corrected area thus causing haloing around any and all lights. You get used to it but it's always there. Also in line with the poll that prompted your question, star gazing post Lasik sucks. I live in the west and when camping always enjoyed star gazing, but now I can only make out the brightest stars and can no longer see many of the constellations. This is due to the same cause as the halo effect, my eyes can't get enough focused light through the fixed area and the unfixed blurry area just blurs what light is coming in.
I'd recommend just getting them both done at once, so as to get it over with. One eye or two you're going to have to take at least one full day off with each surgery.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:2, Informative)
Nowadays, they correct a bigger circle and test how much your pupils dilate in complete blackness so they can make sure you won't get haloing effects. I had mine done about 6 years ago, with the new bladeless method (they now use a laser to cut the flap). I went from 20/150-2/200 to 20/10-20/15, and am still significantly better than 20/20. No halo effects at all, and the stars look great at night. You need that day off with surgery now (mostly because you'll be incredibly dilated all day), but the next day I was fine to go back in, no pain/discomfort at all after the surgery.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:0)
Hear hear. It was more like fifteen years ago for me, and my eyes are aging out of correct again, but that comment, "Best money I ever spent" I told everyone who'd sit still long enough to hear it.
AC
PS - I didn't notice the night vision thing. What I got was absolute screaming light sensitivity the next day. I was in the hall (no windows), with all the lights off and all the doors closed and a blanket over my head and it was still too bright. They made soothing noises at me over the phone, told me it would go away, and it did. AC.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:2)
Thanks for that, it was an interesting post. The night vision issues seem quite worrying. How is driving in the dark?
A lot of people I speak to say it is the best thing they ever had done, but it just worries me that the surgery is non-reversible so if there is a problem you are screwed.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:2)
Driving in the dark is hell. It's like you're inside a pinball machine.
that said, I agree with parent that it's the best money I ever spend. The joy of being able to see in the swimming pool, not having to fiddle with lenses for 5 minutes in the morning and evening. It's great.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:2)
But overall, I've still been able to drive safely since the operation. This time of year I'm most likely to be driving in the dark, getting to work before the sun is up and not going home until after it's down, but I still had the reaction time to be able to brake in time to dodge some deer while driving to work yesterday morning. (Bambi's mom at 60 mph would not have been good for my truck.)
If you want reversible, you could go with implanted contacts, they can just take those out. I'd say the real key is to look at where you get it done. You don't have to pay top dollar, but at the same time do you want to trust your eyesight to the lowest bidder? I paid $1200 an eye at the local eye institute, about the same time I saw an optometrist shop in a mall offering it for $700 an eye. The price difference was tempting, but I just couldn't bring myself to get my eyes cut and zapped at the local mall. Another institute I looked at wanted $1500 per eye, but was further away and looking into their facilities and techniques I couldn't see sufficient difference to warrant the higher price. The eye institutes are able to take a rather impressive set of tests before and after the surgery showing them the exact shape and condition of your entire eyeball. They do hundreds a week, and have the processes down to an art, they are also more likely to have access to the latest systems and techniques.
For others and for you when you age, they also have the ability to do bifocal corrections, where they adjust one eye to be far-sighted and one to be near sighted and your brain uses the appropriate eye for the task at hand, eliminating the need to wear bifocal or reading glasses.
Oh one other point, for the twenty years I wore glasses I always had photo-grey lenses. To this day I find it very uncomfortable to be out in the daystar without sunglasses. I attribute it to the photo-grey more than the lasik but it may be due to the lasik.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:1)
Thanks for that, it has been really useful. I think I might take the plunge.
Re:Laser surgery (Score:2)
A bit from each end (Score:2)
Re:A bit from each end (Score:2)
I'll second that. All my experiences with home telescopes and observatories I've visited have been underwhelming to say the least. I'd rather look at Hubble images any day. The only exception is when I've been fortunate enough be in the mountains (or just away from urban areas and other sources of light) on a few clear nights. A telescope would have been nice, but it's amazing enough just to see the full night sky and everything I usually miss living in large cities. For shear breadth of view the naked / lensed eye works quite well.
Re:A bit from each end (Score:1)
Stars? What stars? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stars? What stars? (Score:0)
ugh, yup. but i live in michigan, and have, on rare occasion, gone way up north, and out onto the lake, where there is relatively little light pollution. That's quite a sight
Re:Stars? What stars? (Score:2)
yeah - the light pollution overwhelms my "scantily" (are coke bottle thick glasses scantly?) dressed eye. I'm lucky to catch a glimpse of Venus, much less any stars that weren't manufactured in Hollywood. Nothing will ever beat the night I was in Aruba and the island lost power, though - that was amazing.
Re:Stars? What stars? (Score:1)
Technically, yes. They're scant in the same sense granny panties are.
CowyboyNeal Option (Score:2)
My God, CowboyNeal is full of stars.
Re:CowyboyNeal Option (Score:2)
Amazing (Score:0)
The most amazing spot I have ever seen for watching the stars with my own eyes...
Far north Australia up the telegraph track, completely pitch black outside.
When you looked up at the sky, you could see everything...
I looked like a science book or something out of a movie.
Truly amazing to see with your own eyes.
You could even watch satellites with the naked eye . No joke.
I have no eyesight... (Score:3)
MS World Wide Telescope (Score:1)
I watch the stars... (Score:0)
I watch the stars totally naked with my eyes.
Moderate dress (Score:2)
Slashdot and no software option? (Score:2)
Dark Sky (Score:2)
All joking aside from this poll, those fortunate enough to live or visit areas with dark sky (low/zero light pollution) are aware of the bewildering awe that comes from gazing at the Milky Way in all its glory. I always found it a bit of an oxymoron that the brightest night sky you can see is called "dark sky".
Oh, and to the ignorant masses: Observe. [dakotalapse.com]
I watch the stars with my glassy eyes (Score:1)
1, 3 and 4 (Score:5, Interesting)
I like all stargazing options available to me, but voted for 4.
My radio telescope is a very simple one: a receiver tuned to remote (500-1500km) Mexican analog TV transmitters on channel 2, connected to a "rabbit ears" antenna in the attic. I can hear reflections from meteor trails as short "pings". The next step is to connect it to the PC sound input and use SpectumLab+Colorgramme software to count the reflections 24/7/365 and then upload the data to www.rmob.org. About $200 worth of equipment (the PC is an ancient laptop), and I collect some real scientific data.
With a heavily dressed eye (Score:2)
dunno (Score:1)
True missing option (Score:3)
I'm awash in city lights and can't see any stars, you insensitive clod.
I live in the Chicago suburbs. About a year ago, my wife and I took her sister's son, then 9, to visit my mom, roughly a hundred miles south. He had never left the metro area and was amazed by all the stars visible on the drive back.
not that many stars to see (Score:2)
Within 50 light-years, we only see 133 of the 1,400 stars. So most star we see are REALLY bright and much farther away.
Of course, the haze we call the Milky Way, and a few other blobs that are barely visible are made of millions to billions of stars each.
Re:True missing option (Score:1)
I live in the city of Chicago, only a couple of miles from the Loop, and on hazy nights I can only see a few, but I can see some (think single digits). Lately, it's been much better, and I've been able to see quite a bit more than that with the naked eye (I can see Orion's sword e.g.). With binoculars, I could see the Orion Nebula very easily, many stars in the Pleiades, and even found Uranus the other day (I could even tell it was blue).
That's right, Uranus is so big I could see it from downtown Chicago.
I have a small telescope, and have used it for looking at planets and the moon. Saturn and its rings looked great last spring (my wife spotted Titan before I noticed it), and Jupiter's in a good position now. So you can do backyard astronomy (or back apartment deck astronomy in my case) even downtown, although don't expect to be discovering dwarf planets or anything.
Re:True missing option (Score:2)
Oh sure, we can see a few but it's nothing like where I grew up, in a small town in the middle of miles of corn fields.
I'm just looking up at the sky while walking around outside, not really looking. I spend a lot of time driving my nephew around and he's been doing planets and stuff in school lately, so he's really funny. "Hey, that's Jupiter. Oh wait it's flashing and moving. That's a plane."
Binoculars (Score:2)
I voted for the silly option, but my real preference is binoculars. They magnify nicely, but are much easier to slew around the sky to look at whatever interests you.
In fact, in my experience, binoculars are what amateur astronomers most often recommend to novices.
Telescopes are very nice, too, but they're only useful if you have the time and interest to sustain them.
Only when ... (Score:2)
Professionally (Score:2)
With at least a 1.8 m scope (like last night), or up 8 m if I can; using either a V+R broadband filter or going longward to H-band if using adaptive optics (helps to close the loop, you see). Granted, I'm always tracking non-sidereal targets, and so the "stars" show up as streaks...
Re:Professionally (Score:2)
Re:Professionally (Score:0)
I worked on an adaptive optics project in grad school. After closed-loop correction of a M=0.6 shear layer (if you're thinking DOD funded, you think right), I have developed this weird compulsion to laugh whenever I hear an astronomer talking about correcting the atmosphere boundary layer.
Though, to be fair, we used a forcing actuator to regularize the shear layer at a specific frequency, letting us use a PLL and compensate for the poor slew-rate and response time of the DM -- and I really don't wanna see the voice-coil actuator needed to regularize the ABL. ;)
XXX Naked Eye XXX (Score:2)
I usually make two trips to dark sky sites in the summer during new moon weekends to do some astrophotography. While my imaging rigs are doing their thing I prefer to sit back and soak up those ancient photons.
Binoculars? (Score:2)
Light Pollution (Score:2)
I do miss the neighborhood where I grew up. It was outside a small town on the Oregon coast, and there were no street lights (mainly so as not to clutter up the ocean views). It was fantastic to just sit outside on clear nights (admittedly, few and far between) and look up at the sky with almost no light pollution at all.
Brooklyn is nowhere near the same in those terms...
Here: (Score:2)
http://www.freakzilla.com/pics/index.php/2010/07/16/thats-no-moon/ [freakzilla.com]
200mm lens with a 2x teleconverter.
Aperture fever is... (Score:1)
With my SETI (Score:2)
I Live in Portland, Oregon (Score:0)
What are "stars" ?
Re:I Live in Portland, Oregon (Score:1)
Stars are those things we see in the summer.
At least that's when we see them in Seattle.
Beautiful, aren't they? (Score:0)
Stars. I never really look at them anymore...
TMZ (Score:2)
The way a fruit flies does, for navigation (Score:1)
Because, let's face it, there are a heck of a lot more fruit flies watching the skies than people.
In the Checkout Line (Score:2)
Ok, so Demi and Ashton have split, and Miley Cyrus Got Liam Hemsworth a Puppy for 22nd Birthday, but I'm still left wondering what the hell is a "Kardashian" - is that like an Elbonian?
Modestly dressed eyes (Score:2)
I use binoculars. Somewhere between options 2 and 3 I guess.
None of the above (Score:2)
There are no windows in my room.
What do I need them for anyway, I have Google Earth -> View -> Explore -> Sky.
Can you say ... (Score:1)
Photon Phix (Score:1)
I like to watch the stars ... (Score:2)
While totally naked
Telescopes. (Score:2)
lasik = clothed? (Score:0)
Does that mean that someone with breast implants or other cosmetic surgery is also considered clothed by the OP?
Winter (Score:2)
Its winter here now - if its clear emough to see the stars then its damned cold. Naked eyes would freeze. Wind chill tonight could be -40 degrees