Years. That is a time lapse loop, and the current year is in the upper left corner.

> There's roughly 25,000 light years of dust and stars to see through.

You're right... it would be impossible to view those stars using the optical spectrum. However, the scientists in this case, and for the multi-year time-lapse loop I linked to used radio waves which were unaffected by dust. One might think that interposing stars would block out the view (after all, the view is sideways through the "platter" of the galaxy) but given the far separation of the stars, the view is not blocked even at such vast distances.

I initially shared your incredulity, and I did the research, and that is indeed a radio image of the actual stars at the center of our galaxy.

Correction: It's called "Sagittarius A*" And NASA does not qualify it using terms such as "might be a black hole" or "theorised to be a black hole." They simply call it a "supermassive black hole"

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...

> the EHT team is ultimately after to prove the existence of black holes."

It's already been proven. There is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and it's been named "Sagitarius A"

Using infrared telesopes, you can "see" stars orbiting the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Orbits of about 28 stars have been observed and using math, the mass of the stars and the required mass of the black hole has been calculated. Only a black hole can account for the kinds of orbits you see those stars doing.

It is a sight to behold and at first I could not believe it. Watching the stars at the frickin center of the galaxy orbit a black hole is a stunning sight once you truly grok what you are seeing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Realize that this video is not an artist's intepretation, but is actual imagery of stars orbiting something of immense mass, something which can only be a black hole.

See, for e.g.:

"What is a "runaway" grand jury?" http://campus.udayton.edu/~gra...

Most grand juries are lapdogs of the prosecutor, it is true. When they go off on their own, they are called "runaway grand jurys" and courts and prosecutors don't want them to know it is possible. Much like jury nullification... no court will instruct a jury that they can nullify, similarly, no court is going to tell a grand jury they can subpoena on their own without the prosecutor saying OK.

But it is rare for a grand jury to go off on their own these days. This was not always the case. Historically, grand juries were independent of the prosecutors. But these days, it is a rare thing, and the Ferguson grand jury probably played the lap dog.

All the facts they asked for. They have the power to subpoena anyone they want.

I've worked as an election judge in Colorado and in Pennsylvania and in both states I got paid between $100 and $150 a day for election day, and got paid for the training. It's not a bad way to spend a vacation day. Get paid for the vacation day, and the hundred and some bucks from the county, and get that vibe you get being a part of the democratic process. Plus, for places with electronic voting machines, it's good to have a technically oriented person there, because it is, after all, a computer and setting them up is usually not easy for non-techies.

That's why Linus uses Gnome, I suppose.

Not Debian stable.

This law does not ban indexing by libraries, by the legal system, and by a multitude of other means which have legitimate societal uses where there is a legitimate need for the information. The law does not advocate removal of information, only how and when it is indexed and presented.

This guy I replied to, who proposing the source be deleted does not understand the scope of the law. He proposes deletion of material, when that would countervene the intention of the law which is to allow proper and needed accees to historical record, not just up and deleting history.

If you can't see the difference between banning new creation and altering the historic record, I don't know what to tell you.

> If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it.

I disagree. A search engine creating links is new creation. New publishing. Banning the creation of news links is WAY different from altering a historic record. Where does it stop? Do you delete history books? You have read 1984, right? Deleting historic records is pretty damned close to changing it in the style of 1984's dystopian future.

If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola.

Yeah. By making sure the 150 flying people over from West Africa every day still can hop on a plane and get here. Because our economy would be devistated if those 150 could not get here.

Got ebola? Don't want to be cared for by pariahs in grass huts? Hop a flight to the USA and get a half million dollars worth of care for free.