Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space

Big Dipper "Star" Actually a Sextuplet System 88

Theosis sends word that an astronomer at the University of Rochester and his colleagues have made the surprise discovery that Alcor, one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper, is actually two stars; and it is apparently gravitationally bound to the four-star Mizar system, making the whole group a sextuplet. This would make the Mizar-Alcor sextuplet the second-nearest such system known. The discovery is especially surprising because Alcor is one of the most studied stars in the sky. The Mizar-Alcor system has been involved in many "firsts" in the history of astronomy: "Benedetto Castelli, Galileo's protege and collaborator, first observed with a telescope that Mizar was not a single star in 1617, and Galileo observed it a week after hearing about this from Castelli, and noted it in his notebooks... Those two stars, called Mizar A and Mizar B, together with Alcor, in 1857 became the first binary stars ever photographed through a telescope. In 1890, Mizar A was discovered to itself be a binary, being the first binary to be discovered using spectroscopy. In 1908, spectroscopy revealed that Mizar B was also a pair of stars, making the group the first-known quintuple star system."

Comment Not so fast (Score 1) 575

Relativity is wrong at some level... or quantum is. Or both.

As far as I know, there is currently no basis for assuming that it is relativity that is wrong (or that is the only one wrong).

My personal theory is in line with Have Brain Will Rent (just below), that relativity and quantum mean completely different things by "time". But that's just a guess.

Comment Death of one old bag of baloney? (Score 2, Interesting) 364

If I recall correctly, MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code. Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code of the program in question. Big difference. (Of course, if this was in Windows itself, the difference would not matter much to MS...)

Comment Expect? (Score 5, Insightful) 575

I don't expect anything past today. Statistics don't apply to individuals. (Yeah, in the statistical sense, I expect 80-100, but in the normal usage of the word, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that" seems like the right attitude. The quote is from James, though I forget the exact verse.)

Why have such an attitude? Because I recognize that I'm not immune to car crashes, cancer, random crime, and all the rest. Bad stuff doesn't just happen to other people.

And even if I don't die early, others around me may. "When... the flowers are laid on the grave, will the tears that fall to the ground be the tears of regret for the words that we did not say?" - Steven Curtis Chapman

So don't wait. Plan ahead, sure, don't be stupid. But also make today count.

Comment Maybe, maybe not (Score 5, Informative) 77

IANAL. Having gotten that standard disclaimer out of the way, here's how I understand it. Jacobsen v. Katzer was a blatant, deliberate ripoff of open source code, followed (IIRC) by suing the original author for using his own code that the thief had claimed after stealing it. Said thief claimed that the open source license didn't mean anything, so that the thief's claim on the code was the only real one. Said thief lost the case. Now, I may have some of the foregoing details wrong. Don't take that as the gospel about what happened. But the point is, this case doesn't have much to do with accidental infringement. So let's take a specific example. Let's say open source project X unwittingly gets some code in it that is actually owned by company Y. Let's say that you, company Z, are using this code in a widget that you have shipped a large number (N) of. Now company Y is raising a stink. Do you have to either pay company Y for the use of their code or update all of your widgets in the field? Yes, unless company Y decides to be nice. (Note, however, that this is no different than a situation that Microsoft found itself in a few years back, so it's no different because the code was open source.) Are you liable for some large number of dollars times N to penalize you for stealing company Y's code? Probably not, unless your lawyers do a lousy job. You did it in innocence, which is completely different than the facts of this case.

Comment Sauce for the goose... (Score 1) 186

Would we be screaming if it was Microsoft who did this, rather than Google? Yeah, we would be screaming, and rightly so. We'd be worried about Microsoft attempting to create an MS-only ghetto that they lock people into (though it's harder to see how they could do so with a subset, rather than with extensions like they tried last time). We should subject MS to extra scrutiny - they have certainly earned it. But that doesn't mean that Google gets a pass. I know their motto is "Don't be evil", but that doesn't mean that they will live up to it forever.

Comment Re:Getting old, I guess... (Score 5, Insightful) 629

A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.

Comment Something that bugs me (Score 1) 235

We just had the Super Bowl. People payed 2.4 million dollars to air one 30-second-long commercial.

Were they stupid? Or did they actually know what they were doing? Can they really make a difference in people's behavior in 30 seconds of passive viewing?

My belief is that the advertisers are not stupid - that it actually pays. But if so, arguing that all the sex and violence on TV - or in video games - has no effect, when people are exposed to hours and hours of it, seems rather naive. 30 seconds of a commercial changes people's behavior, but hours and hours of program don't? I'm sceptical...

Look, I'm not supporting Jack Thompson here. As far as I can tell, he's an obsessive jerk who is happy to stretch the truth beyond all recognition to try to advance his crusade. I don't want anything to do with him. And yet, his basic premise - that video games can change people's behavior in negative ways - seems to me to be completely reasonable. More than that, it seems to be supported by the actions of the advertisers, who bet millions of dollars that they can change our behavior via what we watch.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...