Personally if I were to make the decisions on hiring someone, and give the choice between a person who knew only one language inside and out and a person who was exposed to 4 or 5 different language but needed a quick peek at a reference book to make sure they got the syntax right or some such, I would pick the 2nd person without even blinking.

You see, to the first person, he has only one tool in his tool box (a hammer), and to him everything will look like a nail.

Programming is so much more then just simply banging out a bunch of lines of code. It's looking at the requirements and picking the best tool for the job. In addition things are never static. A little tool may be needed and python may just fit the bill, then there will be that web application that needs enhanced and that is written in PHP, and the boss just dropped by and said that corporate just got a new application in and it has it's own scripting interface and it needs in interface to the application that you are responsible for.

Sure... if you are working on a big project, that project may have decided to use just one language and you will spend the next 3 years looking at java, but knowing how a computer really works (from that assembly class - even though you've never code a single line of assembly) you can make some wise decisions on how to implement something, or maybe just maybe you might come back and say - you know right here it would be beneficial to call out to a routine written in C because Java just isn't going to cut it right here.

Ah... the constitution does not enumerate the rights that we have, but lists what rights the government has. The bill of rights explicitly spells out those things that the government cannot take away. The 9th and 10th amendments spell this out

I'd give her a little more credit... I don't know all the details but reading the "Caroline's story" it does sound like she was capturing and processing the images herself (with some assistence in getting going and learning what to do). It might have been "Dad's" observatory and such.. but it still looks like she was doing the work. The co-discovery might simply have been the "hey let me check my data as well..".

The setup that some of these SN hunters is fairly automated, they maintain a list of objects that they will check on a routine basis. A group of SN hunters will sometimes pool their resources, share lists, coordinate what objects they are going to check, etc. The scopes can be automated to jump from object to object, take some exposures, then move on to the next object. The processing of the exposures can be partially automated, but it still requires going through them to determine if it's real or an imaging artifict or a cosmic ray on the image. This used to be done by using an optical blink comparitor (an old school optical box set up where you can quickly flip from viewing one photographic plate to another)

Anyway -- Kudos to Caroline. It's a fun hobby that has been keeping me busy since I was 12 and had access to a 10" Newtonian.

Within the amateur and professional astronomy circles there is a fairly wide known and standard method of reporting astronomical stuff (see http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbat.html )

Many deepsky objects (galaxies, nebulae, star clusters) become "well known friends" by amateur astronomers. For example, when ever I'm out observing I will usually do a quick peek at M13 in Hercules, M81, M82 in Ursa Major, or parts of the Veil nebulae in Cygnus when they are visible (just to name a few). I suspect if there was a new supernova in M81 or M82, there is a chance that I would "catch it" by noticing something "odd" (think of it like noticing a new pimple on a friends face). Once something "odd" is noticed, the next step would be to check recent and older photographs of that region. If it's suspected to be "new" then the information is submitted to the IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams according to the instructions listed above. Usually the next step that happens is that the pros might get involved to verify the finding.

There are "rules" on who discovers the object, based mainly on the chronological time that IAU receives the information. Co-discovery of the same object can happen, usually the cut-off is when the IAU sends out the notice that there is a potential new object. In other words, say that I notice a new brightness in M81, I record the information and at 10:15 GMT send it in to the IAU CBAT. Someone else also notices the same object and sends in the information at 10:30 GMT. There is a CBAT notice sent out to subscribers at 10:35 GMT. Any observation after 10:35 would not be considered a discovery.

BTW if you go out to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/RecentSupernovae.html and look for 2008ha, you will find that there where 2 other people who are listed as discoverers of the same supernova, and it looks like Caroline Moore has been "working" with the same folks because she is also listed with at least one of them on two other recent supernova discoveries.

The fact is, there is an enormous base of existing tested FORTRAN code that is still in use and still being developed within the scientific community. The issue is not simply writing new code in a newer language, the problem is setting up a new tested base in the new language.

Lets say that you are working on a project to evaluate the effects of theoretical gravity waves through a nebulae. You have a choice

1. Use 3 college interns to modify some code that you have been working on using a library of subroutines that have you and your prior researchers have been building up and using over the last 40 years
2. -or- Use 3 college interns to write new code from scratch in a new language that the compiler/interpreter was just released 2 years ago.

And oh, you have to publish results in 2 months in order to get your next NSF grant.

Yes, the new code might be all object orienty, and you can use the latest IDE to develop in, and you can hire a bunch of fresh young (cheap) grad students that are familiar with the latest python, perl, C#, etc. development and they can bang out thousands of lines of code a day. But are you really really sure that that freshly written eigenvalue routine produces the correct result? Has that new compiler been tested on the super-computer you have limited access to, can it even take advantage of all the power of that system?

I'm not saying that FORTRAN compilers are not bug free, but I suspect that the chances of finding a basic compiler or runtime library bug is lower in FORTRAN then in say Perl 6.

A couple of years ago my son spent some time doing some intern coding work for a private atmospheric research group. The group was/is doing bleeding edge research. My son was helping out one of the researchers in updating code that handled 2D models to 3D models. All the code was in FORTRAN and there was no desire to move away from it.

The problem isn't only in the US government. It's also in the IT (and probably many other) industries. In the rush to make more profit, the people who know how things really work under the covers are let go (because that component is working well enough). In the meantime there is a huge amount of new work sitting on top of of all this old stuff. As long as nothing under the cover breaks everything is just fine.

From your own reference...

No... the Electoral college votes are supposed to represent the individual state. The fact that the state legislatures have delegated the selection to the people is a state choice.

Using Wikipedia and looking at the US population values:

Without the Electoral College the popular vote would go to: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego and Dallas. The total of these (around 238 million) are over 70% of the total US population (around 300 million)

The populations of: Wyoming (~500,000), South Dakota (~800,000), North Dakota (~600,000) and Iowa (~3,000,000) would not equal the population of New York City (~8,000,000).

If this trends continues, Iowa and any "small state" will never see a presidential candidate campaign again, they would be too small and their vote would no longer matter anymore.

Remember that under the US Constitution, the appointment of the President is by the States (via the appointment of the electors)

"Most secure ever", even if a relative term, still implies that MS believed that security was a priority for this product, and also a selling point. If they didn't believe it was secure in any way, then they would never have used the term "most secure ever", or even have referred to security at all.

The fact that they try to use some fine print buried in the EULA to give themselves an out doesn't resolve them from responsibility. If they tout security in any way, then they're claiming their OS is secure. This makes them responsible if there are blatant security flaws which they neglect to fix in a timely fashion.

Well, I'm in Rome right now and 90% of the city is 300+ years old, with some buildings in continuous use well over 1000. In the States, Hoover dam is getting close. So yeah, 80 seems manageable if you are actually building things to last and not just random crap that gets people on a payroll.

Yeah, the old process involved using a cutter to separate the front from the funnel while under a constant spray of water to keep lead dust from killing people, though I believe I misspoke and they actually leave the leaded section leaded until it's reprocesses. The front section is typically vacuumed or washed out to remove the phosphorus powder (which is a bastard to clean up when you break one sometimes) and then different glasses are separated and graded before being sent to smelters or glass to glass recyclers.

Most newer methods of seen involve updraft systems that basically keep the air moving away from any personnel while the cutting and breaking is done, although in my experience many places using this method don't appropriately maintain their ventilation systems which are prone to clogging (and then becoming completely useless, even though if you try to check it by hand you can still feel the air current)

Reading the fine article...

Looks like the old CEO is still there...