THIS IS OT comment On 2/5/21 11:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 2/5/21 11:32 AM, me@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't find naming differences to be big differences. Like I keep telling optical astronomers, radio astronomy is just observing at another wavelength; I get a lot of mean looks when I say that, too. It's all light, why are humans so special that our three sensory passbands centered around 450nm, 540nm, and 575nm should be so important? Why is the 400nm-700nm band more important than say 1000nm to 1700nm other than human eyes' sensitivities? Package naming is syntactic sugar, no more and no less, IMHO.
Agree in general, but there may be huge difference physics wise. One example; at very low frequencies you finally will hit huge 1/f noise (1/f noise is fundamental property of the nature). But in general, observation frequencies are defined more by for which frequency you can get cheap equipment. Which ends up being military radio location and radio navigation ones (a lot of stuff is produced for military, hence less unique equipment == cheaper prices).
Valeri
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
