To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.
Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question.
It seems absolutly counter intuitive to say that a user running a Windows OS shouldn't use an anti-virus program. Yet, some of the comments in this thread, and many articles at dedoimedo.com are saying that their use is uncalled for. That's hard to believe. The malware writers aren't passivly waiting for users to visit their sites or download infected software. A review of honeypot statistics will verify this.
But why? Stating that "You don't need an anti-virus in Windows" is intreging. But, statements like this need to be backed up. Otherwise, its just an opinion without foundation.
I would love to run my XP system without the use of an AV program. I'd uninstall the one I have now if:
- I can get solid reasons why it's not needed.
- Be given alternatives which, at least, equally secure my system against attack.
- Have these assertions backed up with verifiable facts.
USPTO gets an Epic Fail for approving it.
And Penny-Arcade can cry at the down fall of Mr Period and his friends.
I usually suspect the users of 'careless web activity' when I delouse a PC, but now I'm going to have to give some the benefit of the doubt."
Link to Original Source
I've regularly volunteered to give astronomy classes to the Girl Scouts in my area using a 4.5" Newtonian telescope. The kids, teachers, and myself always have a great time.
I hope the following ideas will help out:
*** ENVIRONMENT ***
- Choose a dark sky area away from city lights.
The farther away you are from the city and any local street lamps or cars, the more objects you'll be able to see.
- Choose nights that are as close as possible to the new moon.
- Setup the telescope outside for at least 30 minutes before using it.
This lets the optics come to thermal equilibrium with the ambient outside temperature. If you don't do this; the image will waver and be quite blurry while the optics expand/contract.
- Let everyone's eyes become use to the dark.
It will take about 30 minutes from the last exposure to white light for our eyes to get acquainted to the dark. We see much better after that. I'd suggest using the time for discussions and naked eye observations.
- If you have to have a light source, only use flash lights with a red filter.
Using red light helps us keep that night vision just mentioned.
*** OBJECTS ***
The objects you have available all depend upon what latitude you're located, and what time of year.
Depending on your time constraints, and the attention span of 9th graders; you probably only want to pick 3 - 4 objects. Make sure you know what they are, have background info on them, and have used the telescope to spot them before. If you're not practiced at using a telescope, it can be quite frustrating finding the correct objects you want at first. Even with a spotting scope.
Stars Taking a look at a star in a telescope is only going to give you a pin point of light; and possibly some color. For effect, I like showing the contrast between naked eye observations and using the telescope. Personally, I like using double/triple star systems. Let the kids make note of "one star". Then, when looking through the telescope it becomes apparent that the one star is actually 2 or 3. The 2 or 3 stars that you see might not be a binary or tertiary star system, but are in fact just appear to be because of their line of sight.
Star clusters Again, I like using star clusters to show them what the telescope brings out. The Pleiades is a fantastic example. Naked eye observations only shows 6 stars. With the telescope this becomes hundreds.
Nebulae A 4" telescope wont bring out a lot of detail on nebula, but you will be able to see it. Depending upon which one you look at. I love using the Orion's nebula; but since its a winter constellation you might not have this option.
If you decide to look at a nebula; there is a trick to it. Don't look at it directly. Focus the telescope on the nebula. Now, as you look, focus your attention just to the side of it. The wispy body of nebula appear best just to the side of where you are actually looking. Also, move the point of where you are looking - not the telescope, your eye. This movement also brings out more of the nebula's wispy appearance.
Galaxy Use the same observational tricks to view a galaxy as you do with a nebula.
Planets Mars is at its closest to Earth it has been in a very long time. Its great through a telescope. Even better is Jupiter. Its quite large and, depending upon the date/time, you'll be able to see up to 4 of the Jovian moons. However, the tried and true show stopper for most of my observations has always been Saturn. To me its not as big, nor are the moons as easy to spot. But the rings always bring out a gasp among the kids.
Best of luck!
So, lets explain what's going on here. Imagine you have a Mac. Imagine you have been really diligent about keeping your copy of Adobe Flash up-to-date (Adobe is commonly targeted by the bad guys, and so Adobe has been releasing regular security updates for Flash and PDF Reader)
Now, imagine (like me) you got your copy of Snow Leopard on Friday, and have now updated your computers.
Unfortunately during the course of that update (and unknown to you) Apple downgraded your installation of Flash to an earlier version (version 10.0.23.1), which is known not to be secure and is not patched against various security vulnerabilities.