Should this be reported? :) Very OT
Someone told me about this earlier today. I'm guessing it's a mistake but have not decided if I should report it or not. Alternatively, we could just let Guy "handle" it... :) 1. Go to Google ( http://www.google.com/ ) 2. Type in the word "failure" (without the quotation marks) 3. Do not click on "Google Search". Instead click on "I'm feeling lucky". 4. Don't shoot me. I'm just the messenger... :)
Sorry Patrick, that has been happening for a few years now :) It is called a "google bomb", but is not done by the company "Google". I quote from Wikpedia: "A Google bomb or Google washer is a certain attempt to influence the ranking of a given page in results returned by the Google search engine, often with humorous intentions. Due to the way that Google's PageRank algorithm works, a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page all use consistent anchor text. A Google bomb is created if a large number of sites link to the page in this manner. Google bomb is used both as a verb and a noun." . Miserable failure, or miserable alone, will bring the same result, and without doing the "I feel lucky" button, it will return images of Bush. Apparently a lot of people decided that the link was irresistible in their web pages, or tech savvy people are not overwhelmingly pro-Bush. However, and I quote again from Wikpedia: " Bush supporters have since Google bombed Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton, and Michael Moore with the same phrase. As a result the official biography of Carter is the number two result (Since it's hosted on the same site, whitehouse.gov, as the number one result, it is listed with Bush's).".
Try the same thing with the phrase "french military victories"
Someone told me about this earlier today. I'm guessing it's a mistake but have not decided if I should report it or not.
Alternatively, we could just let Guy "handle" it... :)
1. Go to Google ( http://www.google.com/ )
2. Type in the word "failure" (without the quotation marks)
3. Do not click on "Google Search". Instead click on "I'm feeling lucky".
4. Don't shoot me. I'm just the messenger... :)
Patrick, I did as you said. I don't see the mistake. On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Patrick Wiggins wrote:
Someone told me about this earlier today. I'm guessing it's a mistake but have not decided if I should report it or not.
Alternatively, we could just let Guy "handle" it... :)
1. Go to Google ( http://www.google.com/ )
2. Type in the word "failure" (without the quotation marks)
3. Do not click on "Google Search". Instead click on "I'm feeling lucky".
4. Don't shoot me. I'm just the messenger... :)
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I have an optics question. A recent article mentioned how hard it would be to detect the tiny speck of light emitted by an exoplanet, because of the overwhelming brightness of the parent star. Fair enough. However, if a telescope in space were to use a tiny device to block the star's light, you'd think that would allow a view of the planet. -- I'm sure that's not right. But why isn't it? In space, isn't a star basically a point source? I would exepct no light scattering in what is essentially a vacuum. So what's wrong with that idea? Thanks, Joe
I don't know all of the answer to this, but I believe that part of the issue is scattering due to the diffraction that is inherent in any optical system. Hence (I think) it is impossible to create an image of a point source that is also a point. Of course, the pixel size of the receptor also makes a difference. For all you optical geniuses, what else am I missing? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:03 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Can't quite figure this one I have an optics question. A recent article mentioned how hard it would be to detect the tiny speck of light emitted by an exoplanet, because of the overwhelming brightness of the parent star. Fair enough. However, if a telescope in space were to use a tiny device to block the star's light, you'd think that would allow a view of the planet. -- I'm sure that's not right. But why isn't it? In space, isn't a star basically a point source? I would exepct no light scattering in what is essentially a vacuum. So what's wrong with that idea? Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
It shouldn't matter that the blocking piece isn't a point. If covers the star, you'd think it would then allow a view of the planet to show up. Yet I don't think the star really would be a point -- but why not? thanks, Joe
I don't know all of the answer to this, but I believe that part of the issue is scattering due to the diffraction that is inherent in any optical system. Hence (I think) it is impossible to create an image of a point source that is also a point. Of course, the pixel size of the receptor also makes a difference. For all you optical geniuses, what else am I missing?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:03 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Can't quite figure this one
I have an optics question. A recent article mentioned how hard it would be to detect the tiny speck of light emitted by an exoplanet, because of the overwhelming brightness of the parent star. Fair enough. However, if a telescope in space were to use a tiny device to block the star's light, you'd think that would allow a view of the planet. -- I'm sure that's not right. But why isn't it? In space, isn't a star basically a point source? I would exepct no light scattering in what is essentially a vacuum. So what's wrong with that idea? Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe Bauman wrote:
I have an optics question. A recent article mentioned how hard it would be to detect the tiny speck of light emitted by an exoplanet, because of the overwhelming brightness of the parent star. Fair enough. However, if a telescope in space were to use a tiny device to block the star's light, you'd think that would allow a view of the planet. -- I'm sure that's not right. But why isn't it? In space, isn't a star basically a point source? I would exepct no light scattering in what is essentially a vacuum. So what's wrong with that idea? Thanks, Joe
Apparently NASA thinks it could work as their planned Terrestrial Planet Finder will use a coronograph (and an infrared interferometer). Patrick
participants (7)
-
Dave Gary -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Joe Bauman -
Jon Christensen -
Josephine Grahn -
Kim -
Patrick Wiggins