aads

Saturday King-Side Attack [EvolutionBlog]

Having neglected my Sunday Chess Problem duties recently, I’ll give you a bonus chess post this week. I won’t be making a habit of this, however, since I don’t usually play games like this.

Here’s a blitz game I recently played on the Internet Chess Club. I was white. My opponent was black and was rated in the high 1900s. We pick up the action with white about to make his fifteenth move. This came out of a Vienna Game.



I have this terrible fear that in a slow game, with too much time to think, I would have played the wimpy 15. Ne4. But in a blitz game, you might as well go for it. What’s the worst that could happen? So I played 15. Nxf7! This gets the computer’s seal of approval. Play continued 15. … Kxf7 16. Qh5+ Kf8



Actually, the computer says that 16. Qf3 Nce7 17. f6 was even stronger. But the way I played it is totally winning too. Now comes 17. Bxh6! gxh6



The computer still approves. Now for my favorite move. I played 18. f6! which takes away a crucial escape square and moves the f-pawn one step closer to queening. The h-pawn isn’t going anywhere. According to the computer, the immediate 18. Qxh6+, while still winning, is much weaker.

Now came 18. … Re6 19. Qxh6+ Ke8



Now the computer recommends 20. f7+ or 20. Bxd5 as the cleanest kills. Instead I went for 20. Qg6+ Kd7 21. Bxd5



which gets a piece back while retaining an overwhelming position. At this point it was clear that black was going to run out of time, and I was under twenty seconds as well. For the record, the remaining moves were 21. … Kd6 22. Bxe6 Bxe6 23. f7 Qe7 24. d4 Rf8 25. dxe5+ and black ran out of time. Those last few moves were not the best, but that’s blitz chess for you!

As I said, don’t expect this to be a regular feature since I don’t play games like that very often. On the other hand, I do occasionally have attacks like that played against me…



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1kX0Uve

Having neglected my Sunday Chess Problem duties recently, I’ll give you a bonus chess post this week. I won’t be making a habit of this, however, since I don’t usually play games like this.

Here’s a blitz game I recently played on the Internet Chess Club. I was white. My opponent was black and was rated in the high 1900s. We pick up the action with white about to make his fifteenth move. This came out of a Vienna Game.



I have this terrible fear that in a slow game, with too much time to think, I would have played the wimpy 15. Ne4. But in a blitz game, you might as well go for it. What’s the worst that could happen? So I played 15. Nxf7! This gets the computer’s seal of approval. Play continued 15. … Kxf7 16. Qh5+ Kf8



Actually, the computer says that 16. Qf3 Nce7 17. f6 was even stronger. But the way I played it is totally winning too. Now comes 17. Bxh6! gxh6



The computer still approves. Now for my favorite move. I played 18. f6! which takes away a crucial escape square and moves the f-pawn one step closer to queening. The h-pawn isn’t going anywhere. According to the computer, the immediate 18. Qxh6+, while still winning, is much weaker.

Now came 18. … Re6 19. Qxh6+ Ke8



Now the computer recommends 20. f7+ or 20. Bxd5 as the cleanest kills. Instead I went for 20. Qg6+ Kd7 21. Bxd5



which gets a piece back while retaining an overwhelming position. At this point it was clear that black was going to run out of time, and I was under twenty seconds as well. For the record, the remaining moves were 21. … Kd6 22. Bxe6 Bxe6 23. f7 Qe7 24. d4 Rf8 25. dxe5+ and black ran out of time. Those last few moves were not the best, but that’s blitz chess for you!

As I said, don’t expect this to be a regular feature since I don’t play games like that very often. On the other hand, I do occasionally have attacks like that played against me…



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1kX0Uve

Ask Ethan: How Can We Know If North Korea Is Testing Nuclear Bombs? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“In this first testing ground of the atomic bomb I have seen the most terrible and frightening desolation in four years of war. It makes a blitzed Pacific island seem like an Eden. The damage is far greater than photographs can show.” -Wilfred Burchett

The news has been aflame with reports that North Korea detonated a hydrogen bomb on January 6th, greatly expanding its nuclear capabilities with their fourth nuclear test and the potential to carry out a devastating strike against either South Korea or, if they’re more ambitious, the United States.

Image credit: TV screenshot of CNN’s The Situation Room, April 3, 2013. Go to hell, CNN.

Image credit: TV screenshot of CNN’s The Situation Room, April 3, 2013. Go to hell, CNN.

The physics of what a nuclear explosion actually does and how that signal propagates through the air, oceans and ground, however, can tell us whether this was truly a nuclear detonation at all, and if so, whether it was fusion or fission. From all the data we’ve collected, this appears to be nothing new: just a run-of-the-mill fission bomb, with the rest being a sensationalized claim.

Image credit: Alex Hutko on Twitter, via https://twitter.com/alexanderhutko/status/684588344018206720/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw. Note that the Pn and Pg labels are backwards, which I suppose is a note that only geophysicists will care about.

Image credit: Alex Hutko on Twitter, via https://twitter.com/alexanderhutko/status/684588344018206720/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw. Note that the Pn and Pg labels are backwards, which I suppose is a note that only geophysicists will care about.

Come find out how we determined it all on this week’s Ask Ethan !



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1OGQAne

“In this first testing ground of the atomic bomb I have seen the most terrible and frightening desolation in four years of war. It makes a blitzed Pacific island seem like an Eden. The damage is far greater than photographs can show.” -Wilfred Burchett

The news has been aflame with reports that North Korea detonated a hydrogen bomb on January 6th, greatly expanding its nuclear capabilities with their fourth nuclear test and the potential to carry out a devastating strike against either South Korea or, if they’re more ambitious, the United States.

Image credit: TV screenshot of CNN’s The Situation Room, April 3, 2013. Go to hell, CNN.

Image credit: TV screenshot of CNN’s The Situation Room, April 3, 2013. Go to hell, CNN.

The physics of what a nuclear explosion actually does and how that signal propagates through the air, oceans and ground, however, can tell us whether this was truly a nuclear detonation at all, and if so, whether it was fusion or fission. From all the data we’ve collected, this appears to be nothing new: just a run-of-the-mill fission bomb, with the rest being a sensationalized claim.

Image credit: Alex Hutko on Twitter, via https://twitter.com/alexanderhutko/status/684588344018206720/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw. Note that the Pn and Pg labels are backwards, which I suppose is a note that only geophysicists will care about.

Image credit: Alex Hutko on Twitter, via https://twitter.com/alexanderhutko/status/684588344018206720/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw. Note that the Pn and Pg labels are backwards, which I suppose is a note that only geophysicists will care about.

Come find out how we determined it all on this week’s Ask Ethan !



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1OGQAne

December Pieces Of My Mind #3 [Aardvarchaeology]

Our kitchen window

Our kitchen window

  • When we go out for dinner my wife wants to sample everyone’s dishes. And I want to make sure no food is wasted. So we both end up sampling everyone’s dishes.
  • Danish metal detectorists refer to their finds as “cousins”. “Can somebody please ID this cousin?”
  • I’m a typical Swedish atheist. I’m uncomfortable with people having strong feelings about religion. Pro or con.
  • When reading about 17th century Swedish historians in the Rudebeck vein I can understand that they would uncritically repeat whatever a trusted authority had said. But I’m amazed by their willingness to just make shit up in great detail.
  • A lot of the time I get the feeling that commercial space companies are just rehashing the Apollo program’s inventions. But SpaceX’s reusable rocket stage is something radically new, which will get the cost down for launches!
  • The bones of Saint Erik, the national saint of Sweden, have undergone scientific reappraisal. Sabine Sten and her team will announce their results in Fornvännen 2016:1. I am pleased and entertained to note that three of thirteen co-authors have non-Swedish surnames. And eight of them are women.
  • As a kid I heard ABBA’s song lines “Look into his angel-eyes / One look and you’re hypnotized / He’ll take your heart and you must pay the price”. And I thought they were about a charismatic debt collector.
  • My buddy got hit with an inept swindling attempt. Dude tries to take out a really bad $2500 loan in his name, and opts for the physical signature method of identification. So my buddy gets the paperwork mailed to him. With the dude’s easily identifiable email address on it. And his bank account number. *slow clapping*
  • What’s that 80s/90s movie where they’re dubbing porn and one actor hasn’t showed up, so the other guy has to jump between two mikes grunting erotically in two voices? [Jesus of Montreal]
  • So happy about NASA’s sudden budget hike! And it’s largely thanks to one Texas Republican congressman who’s obsessed with looking for life under the ice on Europa. It’s now US federal law that NASA must try to put a lander on that icy moon!
  • I like lists with hanging indents.
  • Another language annoyance: writers who get download and upload mixed up. As in “I downloaded pics of my kids from my PC onto my phone”.
  • The effect of sunshine and caffeine on my mood makes me wonder if I really do have an immaterial soul.
  • The little plastic skis in the collar flaps of my good shirt have gone bendy. They are now collar messeruppers.


from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ZiL0hS
Our kitchen window

Our kitchen window

  • When we go out for dinner my wife wants to sample everyone’s dishes. And I want to make sure no food is wasted. So we both end up sampling everyone’s dishes.
  • Danish metal detectorists refer to their finds as “cousins”. “Can somebody please ID this cousin?”
  • I’m a typical Swedish atheist. I’m uncomfortable with people having strong feelings about religion. Pro or con.
  • When reading about 17th century Swedish historians in the Rudebeck vein I can understand that they would uncritically repeat whatever a trusted authority had said. But I’m amazed by their willingness to just make shit up in great detail.
  • A lot of the time I get the feeling that commercial space companies are just rehashing the Apollo program’s inventions. But SpaceX’s reusable rocket stage is something radically new, which will get the cost down for launches!
  • The bones of Saint Erik, the national saint of Sweden, have undergone scientific reappraisal. Sabine Sten and her team will announce their results in Fornvännen 2016:1. I am pleased and entertained to note that three of thirteen co-authors have non-Swedish surnames. And eight of them are women.
  • As a kid I heard ABBA’s song lines “Look into his angel-eyes / One look and you’re hypnotized / He’ll take your heart and you must pay the price”. And I thought they were about a charismatic debt collector.
  • My buddy got hit with an inept swindling attempt. Dude tries to take out a really bad $2500 loan in his name, and opts for the physical signature method of identification. So my buddy gets the paperwork mailed to him. With the dude’s easily identifiable email address on it. And his bank account number. *slow clapping*
  • What’s that 80s/90s movie where they’re dubbing porn and one actor hasn’t showed up, so the other guy has to jump between two mikes grunting erotically in two voices? [Jesus of Montreal]
  • So happy about NASA’s sudden budget hike! And it’s largely thanks to one Texas Republican congressman who’s obsessed with looking for life under the ice on Europa. It’s now US federal law that NASA must try to put a lander on that icy moon!
  • I like lists with hanging indents.
  • Another language annoyance: writers who get download and upload mixed up. As in “I downloaded pics of my kids from my PC onto my phone”.
  • The effect of sunshine and caffeine on my mood makes me wonder if I really do have an immaterial soul.
  • The little plastic skis in the collar flaps of my good shirt have gone bendy. They are now collar messeruppers.


from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ZiL0hS

AGU’s Sharing Science is helping scientists talk to the rest of us

In our society today, science serves numerous vital roles, and scientists are making our lives better. From natural hazards to natural resources, and from climate change to planetary science, Earth and space scientists serve especially crucial roles. Providing them with the tools they need to effectively communicate the facts of their research so that policymakers, business leaders, and the public can make informed decisions is crucial. 

Despite the important role science plays, we scientists are often stereotyped as uninterested or incapable of translating our work into something the public can understand. To the contrary, many of us who would otherwise be interested in communicating our science to broad audiences often find ourselves lacking the necessary training. 

The absence of formal training opportunities is perplexing problem, as scientists have much to offer society as a whole. Where departments and institutions fall short in providing training, for Earth and space scientists at least, the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Sharing Science Program fills that gap.

AGU is a society with nearly 60,000 members worldwide, devoted to promoting discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of society. It hosts the world’s largest Earth science meeting, held each December in the USA. In addition to its core mission, AGU is dedicated to the promotion of science to a larger audience. To fill that role, AGU created the Sharing Science program. 

The Sharing Science network is composed of scientists from around the world who are passionate about sharing their science with broad audiences. Members range from undergraduates who are looking for advice on how fit science communication into their career path, to researchers who want to express the value of their work to lawmakers and legislators, to tenured professors who never received formal training in science communication but are now realizing the value of translating their work into plain English.

The program encompasses all of the resources and opportunities needed to help scientists effectively communicate with broader audiences — including journalists, educators and students, policymakers, and the public — about Earth and space science and its importance. It includes interactive workshops, webinars, toolkits and more to help scientists understand their audience’s needs and to improve their communications skills. 

AGU also creates and facilitates opportunities for scientists to share their knowledge with a variety of audiences through social media, op-eds, connections with local community groups or legislators, public talks, and media interviews. And scientists are offered the opportunity to network with other science communicators, volunteer to serve as experts and resources to reporters, and have their voices heard through our blogging and social media platforms.

I asked Dr. Shane M. Hanlon with the Sharing Science Program at AGU how they help scientists become better communicators. He told me, 

AGU wants to help scientists convey the value of their work to diverse audiences by empowering them to be visible, authoritative, and accessible voices in their community and the world.

Sharing Science seeks to break down barriers, whether it’s a barrier of not knowing how to find opportunities to engage their audiences, or a barrier imposed by the formalness of scientific training. One small example of such a barrier is the use of jargon. Because it acts as a barrier when communicating science, the program aims to teach scientists how to avoid jargon when speaking with diverse audiences. Non-scientist audience members shut down at the first mention of “geomorphology” or “hydrostatic equilibrium,” but when scientists talk about the origins of landscapes and fluids at rest, the picture is clearer. While jargon is a necessary part of science, reducing its usage is a core part of being a successful science communicator.

It’s important for scientists to be clear, but also concise. Explaining research in plain English is one thing; not boring the audience to death in the process is another. That’s why AGU provides scientists with the tools to explain years of work in 30 seconds or less. If a scientist can sum up their work in 30 seconds, then giving a 5-minute radio interview, 10-minute talk at a conference, or 1-hour presentation to community group becomes less intimidating.

These are just a few examples of how the program works to eliminate those barriers to successful communication. Scientists don’t have to “dumb down” their research or lesson the intellectual merit or seriousness of their work, they just have to speak in ways that engage their audience’s attention and values.

So, what’s next for this endeavor? Illustrating the importance of science communication is getting easier but there is still a lot of work to do. “It feels like things are different now – that we’re past the point of having to convince people that there’s a need for better science communication, so now we can just get right to helping scientists hone their skills,” said Aaron Huertas, multi-year leader of a “Communicating Climate Science” workshop at the AGU annual meeting and Senior Washington Director with Cater Communications, a bipartisan strategic communications firm. 

The Sharing Science program is only in its third year, but AGU has seen an increase, not only in membership, but also in interest about the program and science communication as a whole. Every year at its annual meeting, AGU runs numerous workshops on science communication, and Sharing Science staff members travel all over the country to train eager scientists in communication techniques. AGU is also partnering with other organizations and societies to provide scientists with communication tools.

What scientists are also learning is that the value of communicating is now becoming acknowledged by their peers. And it isn’t just AGU that’s involved. Other organizations like the Union of Concerned ScientistsThe American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Meteorological Society either acknowledge excellence in communication or support communication efforts of their members. 

There are also groups whose sole focus is on climate communication (Climate Communication and Climate Nexus are perhaps the best). Five years ago, my colleagues and I even set up a website whose goal is to connect reporters and elected officials with scientists to talk about current climate events (the Climate Science Rapid Response Team).

Perhaps the most prestigious communication honor is the annual Climate Communication Prize. The past five winners are really the who’s-who among our community. I asked the most recent winner, Dr. Richard Somerville, about the importance of communication, particularly for young scientists. He told me,

Click here to read the rest



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1K4SUiD

In our society today, science serves numerous vital roles, and scientists are making our lives better. From natural hazards to natural resources, and from climate change to planetary science, Earth and space scientists serve especially crucial roles. Providing them with the tools they need to effectively communicate the facts of their research so that policymakers, business leaders, and the public can make informed decisions is crucial. 

Despite the important role science plays, we scientists are often stereotyped as uninterested or incapable of translating our work into something the public can understand. To the contrary, many of us who would otherwise be interested in communicating our science to broad audiences often find ourselves lacking the necessary training. 

The absence of formal training opportunities is perplexing problem, as scientists have much to offer society as a whole. Where departments and institutions fall short in providing training, for Earth and space scientists at least, the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Sharing Science Program fills that gap.

AGU is a society with nearly 60,000 members worldwide, devoted to promoting discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of society. It hosts the world’s largest Earth science meeting, held each December in the USA. In addition to its core mission, AGU is dedicated to the promotion of science to a larger audience. To fill that role, AGU created the Sharing Science program. 

The Sharing Science network is composed of scientists from around the world who are passionate about sharing their science with broad audiences. Members range from undergraduates who are looking for advice on how fit science communication into their career path, to researchers who want to express the value of their work to lawmakers and legislators, to tenured professors who never received formal training in science communication but are now realizing the value of translating their work into plain English.

The program encompasses all of the resources and opportunities needed to help scientists effectively communicate with broader audiences — including journalists, educators and students, policymakers, and the public — about Earth and space science and its importance. It includes interactive workshops, webinars, toolkits and more to help scientists understand their audience’s needs and to improve their communications skills. 

AGU also creates and facilitates opportunities for scientists to share their knowledge with a variety of audiences through social media, op-eds, connections with local community groups or legislators, public talks, and media interviews. And scientists are offered the opportunity to network with other science communicators, volunteer to serve as experts and resources to reporters, and have their voices heard through our blogging and social media platforms.

I asked Dr. Shane M. Hanlon with the Sharing Science Program at AGU how they help scientists become better communicators. He told me, 

AGU wants to help scientists convey the value of their work to diverse audiences by empowering them to be visible, authoritative, and accessible voices in their community and the world.

Sharing Science seeks to break down barriers, whether it’s a barrier of not knowing how to find opportunities to engage their audiences, or a barrier imposed by the formalness of scientific training. One small example of such a barrier is the use of jargon. Because it acts as a barrier when communicating science, the program aims to teach scientists how to avoid jargon when speaking with diverse audiences. Non-scientist audience members shut down at the first mention of “geomorphology” or “hydrostatic equilibrium,” but when scientists talk about the origins of landscapes and fluids at rest, the picture is clearer. While jargon is a necessary part of science, reducing its usage is a core part of being a successful science communicator.

It’s important for scientists to be clear, but also concise. Explaining research in plain English is one thing; not boring the audience to death in the process is another. That’s why AGU provides scientists with the tools to explain years of work in 30 seconds or less. If a scientist can sum up their work in 30 seconds, then giving a 5-minute radio interview, 10-minute talk at a conference, or 1-hour presentation to community group becomes less intimidating.

These are just a few examples of how the program works to eliminate those barriers to successful communication. Scientists don’t have to “dumb down” their research or lesson the intellectual merit or seriousness of their work, they just have to speak in ways that engage their audience’s attention and values.

So, what’s next for this endeavor? Illustrating the importance of science communication is getting easier but there is still a lot of work to do. “It feels like things are different now – that we’re past the point of having to convince people that there’s a need for better science communication, so now we can just get right to helping scientists hone their skills,” said Aaron Huertas, multi-year leader of a “Communicating Climate Science” workshop at the AGU annual meeting and Senior Washington Director with Cater Communications, a bipartisan strategic communications firm. 

The Sharing Science program is only in its third year, but AGU has seen an increase, not only in membership, but also in interest about the program and science communication as a whole. Every year at its annual meeting, AGU runs numerous workshops on science communication, and Sharing Science staff members travel all over the country to train eager scientists in communication techniques. AGU is also partnering with other organizations and societies to provide scientists with communication tools.

What scientists are also learning is that the value of communicating is now becoming acknowledged by their peers. And it isn’t just AGU that’s involved. Other organizations like the Union of Concerned ScientistsThe American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Meteorological Society either acknowledge excellence in communication or support communication efforts of their members. 

There are also groups whose sole focus is on climate communication (Climate Communication and Climate Nexus are perhaps the best). Five years ago, my colleagues and I even set up a website whose goal is to connect reporters and elected officials with scientists to talk about current climate events (the Climate Science Rapid Response Team).

Perhaps the most prestigious communication honor is the annual Climate Communication Prize. The past five winners are really the who’s-who among our community. I asked the most recent winner, Dr. Richard Somerville, about the importance of communication, particularly for young scientists. He told me,

Click here to read the rest



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1K4SUiD

2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #2

A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.

Sun Jan 3

Mon Jan 4

Tue Jan 5

Wed Jan 6

Thu Jan 7

Fri Jan 8

Sat Jan 9



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1OGw2vb

A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.

Sun Jan 3

Mon Jan 4

Tue Jan 5

Wed Jan 6

Thu Jan 7

Fri Jan 8

Sat Jan 9



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1OGw2vb

129/366: Hoop It Up [Uncertain Principles]

When schedules permit, I like to take the kids to home basketball games at Union. This works out well for everyone, as almost nobody goes to the games, so the kids can rampage all over the gym and get good and tired without upsetting anyone, and we add somewhat to the crowd supporting the home team.

(I’m not sure what the players made of The Pip yelling “DAAAAAAAD! You can’t tickle me when I’m way up here!” from the very top of the bleachers, though…)

This also gives me a chance to shoot some different subjects, in keeping with the general goal of this photo-a-day business. Thus, a couple of sports action shots:

A free throw during the first half of the Union women's victory over RPI.

A free throw during the first half of the Union women’s victory over RPI.

A jump shot late in the second half of the Union women's win over RPI/

A jump shot late in the second half of the Union women’s win over RPI/

The main take-away from this is that sports photography is really frickin’ hard (and not made any easier by the need to keep an eye on the kids to make sure they’re not about to run onto the court, swan-dive off the bleachers, or anything else disruptive and/or dangerous). I sort of figured it wouldn’t be much different than taking photos of our highly active kids, but when I’m photographing the kids, I’m at least allowed to follow them around, not restricted to the sidelines.

These shots were taken with the 50mm f/1.4 prime lens, because it’s the fastest I have, and thus the least prone to motion blur. Of course, the fixed focal length is sub-optimal for this, but a fast zoom lens would cost about double what I paid for the camera, so, yeah…

(It’s also not great for taking pictures of the kids, as I need to be kind of far from them to get them in the frame. But I got some good cute-kid material, too…)

Anyway, that’s my latest experiment. I can see where this would be a lot of fun, if I didn’t also have to ride herd on the sillyheads. They have play-dates this afternoon during (part of) the time when Union is playing Siena; maybe I’ll go over with the camera and no kids, and see…



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1OasUWQ

When schedules permit, I like to take the kids to home basketball games at Union. This works out well for everyone, as almost nobody goes to the games, so the kids can rampage all over the gym and get good and tired without upsetting anyone, and we add somewhat to the crowd supporting the home team.

(I’m not sure what the players made of The Pip yelling “DAAAAAAAD! You can’t tickle me when I’m way up here!” from the very top of the bleachers, though…)

This also gives me a chance to shoot some different subjects, in keeping with the general goal of this photo-a-day business. Thus, a couple of sports action shots:

A free throw during the first half of the Union women's victory over RPI.

A free throw during the first half of the Union women’s victory over RPI.

A jump shot late in the second half of the Union women's win over RPI/

A jump shot late in the second half of the Union women’s win over RPI/

The main take-away from this is that sports photography is really frickin’ hard (and not made any easier by the need to keep an eye on the kids to make sure they’re not about to run onto the court, swan-dive off the bleachers, or anything else disruptive and/or dangerous). I sort of figured it wouldn’t be much different than taking photos of our highly active kids, but when I’m photographing the kids, I’m at least allowed to follow them around, not restricted to the sidelines.

These shots were taken with the 50mm f/1.4 prime lens, because it’s the fastest I have, and thus the least prone to motion blur. Of course, the fixed focal length is sub-optimal for this, but a fast zoom lens would cost about double what I paid for the camera, so, yeah…

(It’s also not great for taking pictures of the kids, as I need to be kind of far from them to get them in the frame. But I got some good cute-kid material, too…)

Anyway, that’s my latest experiment. I can see where this would be a lot of fun, if I didn’t also have to ride herd on the sillyheads. They have play-dates this afternoon during (part of) the time when Union is playing Siena; maybe I’ll go over with the camera and no kids, and see…



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1OasUWQ

Best photos: Venus and Saturn January 9

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Vince Babkirk - aka Mister Hat - in Thailand.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Vince Babkirk – aka Mister Hat – in Thailand.

The sky’s brightest planet, Venus, and what’s often its faintest and least noticeable bright planet, Saturn, are close together in Saturday morning’s predawn sky – January 9, 2016. They are closer than any two planets since 2013 … only about 1/6 of a full moon diameter apart. Thanks to all who posted their photo at EarthSky Facebook, or G+, or submitted directly to EarthSky. We posted just a few of our favs here.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 by Stephen Marceau in eastern Australia.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 by Stephen Marceau in eastern Australia.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Eran Shacham in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Eran Shacham in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Abhinav Singhai in Delhi, India.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Abhinav Singhai in Delhi, India.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Fernando Roquel Torres in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The telescope inverts the image ...

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Fernando Roquel Torres in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The telescope inverts the image …

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Dave Wrigglesworth in Scotland.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Dave Wrigglesworth in Scotland.

By the way, the moon passed by the planets earlier this week, but most of you probably didn't see the very slim waning crescent moon below the planets on Saturday morning. Here's a catch of Saturday's morning's moon by Matthew Chin in Hong Kong. Thanks, Matthew!

By the way, the moon passed by the planets earlier this week, but most of you probably didn’t see the very slim waning crescent moon below the planets on Saturday morning. Here’s a catch of Saturday’s morning’s moon by Matthew Chin in Hong Kong. Thanks, Matthew!

Bottom line: Photos of the bright planets Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1OTwZ5d
Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Vince Babkirk - aka Mister Hat - in Thailand.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Vince Babkirk – aka Mister Hat – in Thailand.

The sky’s brightest planet, Venus, and what’s often its faintest and least noticeable bright planet, Saturn, are close together in Saturday morning’s predawn sky – January 9, 2016. They are closer than any two planets since 2013 … only about 1/6 of a full moon diameter apart. Thanks to all who posted their photo at EarthSky Facebook, or G+, or submitted directly to EarthSky. We posted just a few of our favs here.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 by Stephen Marceau in eastern Australia.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 by Stephen Marceau in eastern Australia.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Eran Shacham in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Eran Shacham in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Abhinav Singhai in Delhi, India.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Abhinav Singhai in Delhi, India.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Fernando Roquel Torres in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The telescope inverts the image ...

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Fernando Roquel Torres in Caguas, Puerto Rico. The telescope inverts the image …

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Dave Wrigglesworth in Scotland.

Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016 from Dave Wrigglesworth in Scotland.

By the way, the moon passed by the planets earlier this week, but most of you probably didn't see the very slim waning crescent moon below the planets on Saturday morning. Here's a catch of Saturday's morning's moon by Matthew Chin in Hong Kong. Thanks, Matthew!

By the way, the moon passed by the planets earlier this week, but most of you probably didn’t see the very slim waning crescent moon below the planets on Saturday morning. Here’s a catch of Saturday’s morning’s moon by Matthew Chin in Hong Kong. Thanks, Matthew!

Bottom line: Photos of the bright planets Venus and Saturn on January 9, 2016.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1OTwZ5d

adds 2