Article lacks pretty much any technical detail that would make it interesting. Whats the sensor size? What are the typical shutter speed? How do they compress the images? How do they compensate for the noise in now light? Do the cosmic rays impact image quality? Etc Etc.
There's something incredible about a 9 year old spacecraft carrying a 1 megapixel camera into space an having it work flawlessly 4b miles away. The LORRI team must be ecstatic right now.
The result is absolutely staggering. I've previously missed the Jupiter picture and had to stop and really look to appreciate just how amazing that photo is, let alone the Pluto one - from the same camera, a mind-boggling distance away from us.
Turns out it's from a volcano. Now, I get that we already knew about volcanoes there, and while I never really paid too much care about it, I can't help but be floored by that image. The plume is enormous, and it's blue. There's a lot of really, really cool things going on there (the color from the scattering alone is super neat), and suddenly I'm interested in extraterrestrial volcanoes.
I'm embarassed to say I continue to be shocked by how images from space can surprise and delight.
I actually had to sit down and think about the implications of these things when I saw the photos - how far we've come, what we've accomplished, the sophistication of our tech... it really is staggering.
Getting to that image of Jupiter I just had to stop and marvel. Both at God's grandeur in making it, and the ingenuity of the people who made a machine that could get there. And of the two creations, creating people who eventually learn to do that is probably more awesome than creating a planet.
Every possible bit of useful stuff already exists in pi; you just need to know the bit index to retrieve it (in O(n) time, O(1) space).
This is because pi is almost certainly unbiased and irrational, thus it repeats at random forever, which means that all possible finite subsequences are eventually generated.
yes, but it costs O(n) to compute the nth digit of pi (bailey algorithm).
I've talked to people who wanted to publish streams of truly random numbers, where you choose an index into the stream, and the data at the index forms a private key (the shared secret is the index) used to encrypt data.
Maybe it's just me, but I reserve downvotes for trolling, intentionally misleading, flamebaiting, or off topic posts. If I see something I disagree with, I'll post a response instead of downvoting (as I am in this case). Downvoting purely because you disagree, especially without a rebuttal, is simply censorship.
He didn't say his belief is the only right one. It did contribute to the conversation for some of us. And I agree with a sibling commenter, downvoting should ideally be reserved for non-serious/troll comments?
Depends how it's phrased. If someone says "I like liquorice" then I'm not going to downvote. But if someone said "liquorice is the best food in the world" as if it was a fact, then I am going to downvote. If OP said "It is my opinion that Jupiter was created by god" I would not have downvoted. But it's his stating it as a fact which is making me downvote.
Jupiter was the result of solar system formation according to physics which is running all over the universe. There's trillions of trillions of Jupiter's out there.
What's Marvelous is that exploded stars running on basic physics lead to interesting chemistry which eventually evolved into life and intelligence, which then creates science to understand itself. The universe according to basic physical laws leads to self-understanding of itself.
That's what's amazingly and miraculous. Substituting God into the story doesn't make it more amazing, it actually makes it less.
Everything you said is perfectly compatible with believing in God. Particularly believing in a God who is the source of existence itself, including the existence of matter and the existence of the physical laws which lead to the results you so eloquently described. None of that "substitutes God into the story".
Now, maybe the poster meant literal six day creationism, but that's a minority view even among American Christians. And that wasn't actually stated.
Nothing about our existence is amazing and miraculous if the popular multiverse theories are correct. In that case, we're just in one of a trillion-trillion to infinite copies of this universe that happens to look this way.
I don't understand why people say that.
Even IF the multiverse theories are right (good luck finding evidence for that) our universe would still be amazing.
Sure I'm "just" an animal, but the stars at night are still amazing, flowers are still amazing, my wife is still amazing and so on.
I don't know of any evolutionary reason why humans should find the stars and nebulae beautiful and even if a reason was found I still see no reason why suddenly they would not be beautiful anymore.
I'm interested in the data formats and image processing used for all this. I've heard a couple mentions in passing that they're "not in your standard JPG" but I'd like to know more.
So, duh.