5$/week * 35 subscribers * 15 weeks = 9000$ ??
I'm guessing they're quoting 'yearly' figures: 35 * $5/wk * 52weeks = $9100
A person could litterally use the password abc123 and never be bruteforced
You've got to be kidding me. Just what do you think "Brute Force" means anyway, and how do you imagine such an attack is carried out?
Hint: during such an attack, there has to be SOME mechanism for determining success of each attempt.
As long as you keep it encrypted with a sufficiently strong key, is it really any different from using "one-and-only strong password for many sites"?
Yes.
When using one-strong-password for many sites you can't verify the security measures used to protect that password at any given site. They could be storing your password in plain text for all you know. Once one is compromised and linked to your personal information, that could potentially be used by an attacker to access other sites you use.
By using a keyring where only you have access to its password and how it's being treated (ie. not on some remote website), you avoid that problem.
So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky?
Well, some quick math gives about 25.7 million of this size region to cover the entire sky. (assuming I didn't miss a decimal point
As far as number of galaxies in the photo, I'll leave that up to you to count.
The statement by Artifex is NOT an additional requirement. It is merely restating the existing requirements of the GPL licence.
Please take a few minutes and actually read the GPL...
GPL v2.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 2c. You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
The new equation aims to develop a single index for habitability based on variables totally unknown to anyone within many orders of magnitude.
Wow! Sounds very useful... </sarcasm>
Except that it's hard to polarize a projection when the polarization filter is rotating.
Ever heard of circular polarization filters? Orientation is NOT an issue.
"a 6" telescope can NEVER beat a 24" one"
It sounds like you don't have much practical experience using telescopes either.
The Rayleigh equation you state is for the theoretical *MINIMUM* resolvable angle based on aperture size but if you think that's all there is to telescope optics, you probably haven't had experience using a wide range of telescopes. I've used home-ground 10" refractors that have MUCH better resolving power than other commercial 14" scopes.
Size matters, but so do a lot of other factors that ultimately determine a scope's actual resolving power.
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton