|
As a user it's your choice. But there is none as a developer.
antivirus software vendors are terrible; don't buy antivirus software, and uininstall it if you already have it (except, on Windows, for Microsoft's)
|
|
|
|
|
"Brought to you by Microsoft." In all seriousness though, there's a reason I made a batchfile script to disable Windows Action/Security Center[^] on Windows 7. Just stop, avast! does it 10x better with less pompous notifications and no data-mining.
|
|
|
|
|
I found avast! completely annoying on Windows (I use it on Android, though it's still quite annoying there, but very light weight unlike one competitor which used my battery at an alarming rate.)
|
|
|
|
|
Yea, all AV software can be annoying. Mine is heavily customized to be less annoying, haha  I enjoy it because the settings exist to do that and it's lightweight compared to many of its competitors.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon McKee wrote: heavily customized
which probably means it's next-to-worthless.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
That's a bold assumption. It's customized to handle things without annoying me about them unless it's critical.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, I'm a bold that way.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Scientists turned years of images into a spellbinding movie of a faraway stellar system in action. "In Terra inest virtus, quae Lunam del."
|
|
|
|
|
Kepler rules! Yeah!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely fascinating! Soon we'll have AAOD along APOD. I would thought that these planets would be a bit more far away from each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: 129 light-years from Earth
Do I really have to call bullsh1t?
They can't even tell us if there are any sizeable objects in our own Oort cloud, but they can tell us all sorts about planets 129 light years away (omitting, of course, that they are WAY too big and WAY too bright).
God bless crass assumption, photoshop, and audience gullibility: the saviours of astronomy research grants.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
No, you don't.
Those planets are considerably larger than Oort cloud objects and brightly lit by their parent star. Oort cloud objects, so far, have been considerably smaller than planets, dark, not brightly lit by the Sun, and do not give off much in the way of infrared radiation so are far more difficult to detect.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Those planets are considerably larger than Oort cloud objects
... Large enough to rip their sun apart, by the looks of them.Dave Kreskowiak wrote: and brightly lit by their parent star
... On the side that just happens to be facing toward us?
What's more likely is that they are far more distant objects, whose light trajectory is being affected by the spin if the large object between them and us.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Large enough to rip their sun apart, by the looks of them.
The size of the glare doesn't really dictate the size of the planet.
Mark_Wallace wrote: On the side that just happens to be facing toward us?
That video looks to be looking down on the solar system, not edge on. There is no "side" of the planet that faces us. Since we're looking down on the system, what we see is only 1/4 of each planet being lit. The "top" half of each planet and only half of that is lit up by the parent star.
Mark_Wallace wrote: What's more likely is that they are far more distant objects, whose light trajectory is being affected by the spin if the large object between them and us.
Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one and provide documentation on the phenomenon. Yes, gravitational lensing is real, but I've never seen nor heard of it making a background object look exactly like it's orbiting a foreground star.
|
|
|
|
|
In the video, they don't look like they're orbiting; they look like they're going through a short arc, which is being postulated as an orbit.
Looks like rotational lensing to me.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with rotational lensing is that you cannot have it in a single lens. You need multiple lenses to get the rotational effect. There isn't any evidence for a multiple lens setup near that star that I can find.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a couple of hundred light years away, and we have absolutely no idea what is between us and it, or how temperature, gravity, and other, as-yet-unknown interference change the course/velocity/spin of the few photons that reach us.
Boldly declaring "THIS IS WHAT IT IS!" is not science; it's salesmanship.
Astronomy is not a science; it's guesswork that pays better than flipping burgers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Boldly declaring "THIS IS WHAT IT IS!" is not science; it's salesmanship.
In the absence of any evidence for rotational lensing, that's what you're doing too.  You haven't provided any evidence for it but just declaring that's what it looks like to you. Go get the evidence for rotational lensing and we can change the conclusion.
If you don't know what's between us and that star, well, you have to go on the assumption that there's nothing there until you find evidence of what is.
That's the beauty of the scientific method.
They've got a leg up on you because there isn't, as yet, any evidence of rotational lensing. Until there is, "orbiting planets" is the best explanation of what's going on in the video. When and if the evidence for something else shows up, astronomers can come back to this image, reevaluate, and come up with a better model of what's going on.
|
|
|
|
|
No.
I simply stated what I believe is a more possible cause of the effect (if it is indeed an effect of anything other than photoshop).
What I did not state is that it is an *ABSOLUTE FACT*, which is worthy of headlines (+ grants + tenure).
Don't fruggin' cast stones at me. Apply the same ascerbic eye to the statements from the con-men you appear happy to give credence to.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. That escalated needlessly.
You want to give me evidence that they are "con-men driven by headlines, grants, and tenure" or do you just want to leave that as the baseless conservative talking point that it is?
Don't bother answering.
|
|
|
|
|
Escalated? Jes' sayin', that's all.
Just look at their ever-changing claims, and how they're expressed.
It's like reading copy from car salesmen, but with longer words.
And I'm not the one making wild claims and trumpeting that they're absolute fact; I just put forward a conjecture, which was clearly phrased as a conjecture.
Try asking them for evidence, and the true reply should be "Oh, well we received 1,148 photons from kinda that direction, sorta, but we can't really be entirely sure which direction they came from, or what they were bounced around by, on the way", but they talk as if what they partially expound is graven in stone.
Real scientists don't inflate vague ideas to sound like they are the Word of God.
Car salesmen annoy me, too.
And don't get me started on insurance guys.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It is a news source, not a scientific paper. And news articles that don't inflate ideas generally don't get as much attention. Scientific papers, on the other hand, do a much better job at expressing them as more of a probability with a given confidence level than news articles. But they're also harder to read.
|
|
|
|
|
Granted, but quotes like:Quote: “It's just really cool that we can watch planets orbit other stars, and awesome to see by eye Keplerian motion in action,” says Wang.
... don't fill me with confidence, given that he has no solid proof of that he's looking at is what he says it is.
Even when raving about something, the phrasing should be along the lines of "If this is what we think it is, then it would be~~".
That's how scientists, rather than car salesmen, talk.
They'll probably decide it's something else, in a few months, and talk just as assertively about their new great discovery.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah! And the Earth is only 10,000 years old as well, so yah boo sucks to that! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey!
Jehovah says that it's only 4,000 years old!
(One of those morons gave me a book, once, which claimed that Carl Sagan agreed with that figure!)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
