...WITH BETTER RECEPTION!
*Sound of a cabin door being opened*
...WITH BETTER RECEPTION!
*Sound of a cabin door being opened*
I work in this field and usually see power calculations recommending samples of non-viable size.
I can see recruiting hundreds of subjects as being feasible in the US or a large european country but in smaller countries one simply has to state clearly in a paper's limitations that any findings must be interpreted in light of the available sample.
Correction: Obviously 1845 was not over 200 years ago. I don't think this undermines the point, however.
William Parsons (Lord Rosse) cast and figured his mirrors with 1845 technology that he helped improve through his own efforts. It doesn't matter what the sensitivity or apparent size is in relation to a mirror created with 20th century technology developed by Lockheed with unknown millions in government funding. The Leviathan has a larger diameter mirror which is the criteria many news sources are using to claim that Mr. Clements's telescope is the largest ever built.
I'm saddened to see that this has turned into some kind of competition.
A guy in Utah built a 70 inch telescope using a prefabricated mirror smaller in diameter than one that was created over 200 years earlier, the fact that it's not a world record does not undermine his achievement. Reporting it as being the largest amateur telescope ever constructed is inaccurate at best no matter how one reasons it out.
Clements deserves serious kudos for his efforts but comparing them to those of Parsons is unreasonable. Parsons achievements far exceed those of Clements.
You're not considering the modular nature of electronics.
With open hardware designs you can take a circuit schematic and integrate it with another circuit without having to go to all the trouble of generating it from scratch. Instead of dropping single components into a design you can drop a device like an accelerometer and all associated components as a complete circuit and then produce a PCB with everything on one board.
It's the reason there are so many custom arduino-based variants available - people were able to take the original design then change the form-factor or add something.
The AC stares blankly at his monitor. AC shifts in their comfortable chair and then takes a moment to swallow a highly specific quantity of painkiller to combat the headache that's been bothering them for the past few hours. Inadvertently, AC drops some food onto their lap; nomatter, the washing machine in combination with that stain remover will make short work of that come laundry day.
A thought flits into AC's head for a moment, something about where all this technology came from. A related concept goes screaming past attached to the thought of sharing a picture of a cat with a humourous caption attached.
"Thank God for all this cool technology", thinks the AC.
Awesome question which depends on the kid. Generally speaking I'd recommend:
A copy of the Cosmos series to inspire them. I cannot speak highly enough about this series.
Install Stellarium on a computer, it's free. It allows them to learn a phenominal amount about what to look for and doesn't require a dark sky.
A red filter for their torch and a plastic planisphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planisphere
Total cost: £20-£30 (UK prices, cheaper in the US)
Take them outside and let them try and identify the constellations using their planisphere. If they're enjoying what they're doing and are engaged after a few nights it's time to invest in a pair of bino's (preferably tripod-mounted though this is not critical). If they get bored you have bino's which are useful for other things or can be sold on. If for some reason they break the binos it's not a big deal. You can pick up binos and a solid tripod second-hand (used) without spending too much. There are specialised astro binoculars, don't worry about those when you're starting. With bino's they'll be able to see a lot of detail on the moon's surface, planets, quite a number of Jupiter and Saturn's moons and some detail in the 'faint fuzzies' (deep sky objects). Celestron SkyMaster Giant 15x70 bino's are a safe bet.
Cost: Potientially as low as £60
If they're still engaged after working with binos for a few months it's time to start thinking about newtownian telescopes. You get far more bang for your buck with these scopes (sensitivity) than a small refractor and there's no chromatic abberation. Of the two mounting options, dobsonian (alt-az) is the most immediately intuitive but if you're willing to put a little time in, a manual german equatorial mount or GEM makes tracking objects a lot easier. Aim for around 4 inches of aperture. A Celestron 127EQ is a great little beginner option.
I'm in danger of looking like I favour Celestron over other manufacturers - this isn't the case. You'll find a fair bit of competition in the low-end of the telescope market so Skywatcher, Meade, Celestron, Orion and GSO are all good manufacturers. As with everything, read the reviews before buying.
I can't stress enough that the best telescope is one you're going to use. I've seen a few people spend a lump of cash on a shed-ornament.
Coming home after a long day at work and expecting to spend an hour setting up a german equatorial mount or wheeling out a heavy dobsonian will quickly kill your enthusiam.
Determining which scope is best for you involves checking out other people's gear at star parties or at a local astro club. Ask questions like "how often do you use this?" and "how long does it take to set up?" as well as "what can you see?". Remember that location is pretty important but it is not the be-all and end-all of astronomy. Dobson would routinely show people planets and deep sky objects from the middle of the light-polluted city with his constructed telescopes but you can buy a little grab and go scope of much smaller aperture and see much much more from a site with low light pollution.
Another mistake I see lots of people making (even telescope manufacturers!) is to pair a scope with a mount that cannot support it. You'll get a far better view through a small scope on a solid mount than with a large scope on an insufficiently robust mount.
Please don't drop a few hundred dollars on a shiny telescope hoping that you'll see wonders straight away. It's tempting to a lot of people and is a likely way to kill all your enthusiasm for a highly rewarding passtime when you realise you're spending more time fighting with the instrument than you are using it.
Most importantly, do not give one of those crappy National Geographic style scopes to a kid. Presenting astronomy as a frustrating experience will ruin it for them for a long time.
Find what works for you - a little research goes a long, long way.
Cue 400 posts from enthusiastic slashdotters with RC experience explaining exactly where they went wrong.
Expect discussion of cargo capacity, range, optimal fuel mixes, construction materials, markings proven to increase terror...
I agree that specs would be nice. However, as someone who's holding on to a N900 (a peerless mobile device IMHO) I'm just glad that between this and the efforts of the Firefox guys, we may see more open devices that let those of us who are interested in digging around under the hood can look forward to.
You may be interested in BrickPi.
Bravo. I wish I had mod-points.
I saw a movie that explored:
The potential effects of interfering with an early-stage civilization. (Prime Directive 101)
The needs of the many and the one.
Xenophobia and the militaristic response to it.
The relative nature of ethical decisions.
The fragility of the utopian Federation image.
Humanity's ongoing battle with it's base drives.
It may have been heavy-handed in places but all of this is pure Trek. I've much more sympathy with those who compained that it revisits old territory a bit too often. This is Trek with a new coat of paint and an adrenaline shot to the heart. Silly, brilliant, thought-provoking and exciting. It leaves the door open for new fans and has enough intellectual fodder for those who want to wonder about the aforementioned issues.
Sorry for the lack of edit, I can't seem to find the option to modify my post...
Tried suggesting it in a UK, NHS hospital to a manager as an alternative to the widely used Photoshop.
Tried suggesting it in a UK, NHS hospital to a manager (M) as a . The hospital runs a *gait analysis* lab, various imaging labs and has a school for long-term stay kids.
As soon as they heard the name it was off the table. The fear of someone seeing the name and making a compaint was enough.
It doesn't matter that GIMP could have saved the taxpayer-funded NHS money and it doesn't matter how competent a tool it is. It's associated with a word that still has widely recognised derogatory connotations. I've shown it to other people outside of the hospital and I still get uncomfortable looks when I mention the name.
My only hope at this point is that some group will do a rebrand.
Earplugs? neh... White noise? meh... Noise canceling? blah... I masturbated frequently when I was in high school and never had any problem sleeping. YMMV
I'm guessing it's even more effective if one is a screamer.
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger