52 Years and $750 Million Prove Einstein Was Right

 

The finding confirms some of the weirdest of the many strange predictions — like black holes and the expanding universe — of Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, general relativity.

“We have completed this landmark experiment of testing Einstein’s universe,” Francis Everitt, leader of the project, known as Gravity Probe B, said at a news conference at NASA headquarters in Washington. “And Einstein survives.”

That was hardly a surprise. Observations of planets, the Moon and particularly the shifting orbits of the Lageos research satellites had convinced astronomers and physicists that Einstein’s predictions were on the mark. Nevertheless, scientists said that the Gravity Probe results would live forever in textbooks as the most direct measurements, and that it was important to keep testing theories that were thought to be correct.

Clifford M. Will of Washington University in St. Louis — who was not part of the team but was chairman of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration advisory committee evaluating its work, and who wrote a book titled “Was Einstein Right?” — said that in science, “no such book is ever closed.”

Einstein’s theory relates gravity to the sagging of cosmic geometry under the influence of matter and energy, the way a sleeper makes a mattress sag. One consequence is that a massive spinning object like Earth should spin up the empty space around it, the way twirling the straw in a Frappuccino sets the drink and the whole Venti-size cup spinning around with it, an effect called frame dragging. Astronomers think this effect, although minuscule for Earth, could play a role in the black hole dynamos that power quasars.

Empty space in the vicinity of Earth is indeed turning, Dr. Everitt reported at the news conference and in a paper prepared for the journal Physical Review Letters, at the leisurely rate of 37 one-thousandths of a second of arc — the equivalent of a human hair seen from 10 miles away — every year. With an uncertainty of 19 percent, that measurement was in agreement with Einstein’s predictions of 39 milliarcseconds.

Likewise, the “sag” should alter the space-time geometry around Earth, warping it from the Euclidean ideal and cutting an inch out of the Gravity Probe’s orbit around it, so that the circumference is slightly less than the Euclidean ideal of pi times the orbit’s diameter, a fact confirmed by the Stanford gyroscopes to an accuracy of 0.3 percent.

For Dr. Everitt, who joined the Gravity Probe experiment in 1962 as a young postdoctoral fellow and has worked on nothing else since, the announcement on Wednesday capped a career-long journey.

The experiment was conceived in 1959, but the technology to make these esoteric measurements did not yet exist, which is why the experiment took so long and cost so much. The gyroscopes, for example, were made of superconducting niobium spheres, the roundest balls ever manufactured, which then had to be flown in a lead bag to isolate them from any other influences in the universe, save the subversive curvature of space-time itself.

Shortly before the probe’s launching, Dr. Francis said the project had been canceled at least seven times, “depending on what you mean by canceled.” It was finally sent into orbit in 2004 and operated for some 17 months, but not all went well. When the scientists began analyzing their data, they discovered that patches of electrical charge on the niobium balls had generated extra torque on the gyroscopes, causing them to drift.

It would take five more years to understand the spurious signals and retrieve the gravity data by dint of an effort that Dr. Will called “nothing less than heroic.”

In the meantime, the NASA grant ran out. Dr. Everitt secured another one from Richard Fairbank, a financier and son of one of the experiment’s founders, William Fairbank, that was matched by NASA and Stanford. When that ran out and NASA turned him down for a new grant, Dr. Everitt obtained a $2.7 million grant from Turki al-Saud, a Stanford graduate and vice president for research institutes at the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia.

View the original article here

52 Years and $750 Million Prove Einstein Was Right

The finding confirms some of the weirdest of the many strange predictions — like black holes and the expanding universe — of Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, general relativity.

“We have completed this landmark experiment of testing Einstein’s universe,” Francis Everitt, leader of the project, known as Gravity Probe B, said at a news conference at NASA headquarters in Washington. “And Einstein survives.”

That was hardly a surprise. Observations of planets, the Moon and particularly the shifting orbits of the Lageos research satellites had convinced astronomers and physicists that Einstein’s predictions were on the mark. Nevertheless, scientists said that the Gravity Probe results would live forever in textbooks as the most direct measurements, and that it was important to keep testing theories that were thought to be correct.

Clifford M. Will of Washington University in St. Louis — who was not part of the team but was chairman of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration advisory committee evaluating its work, and who wrote a book titled “Was Einstein Right?” — said that in science, “no such book is ever closed.”

Einstein’s theory relates gravity to the sagging of cosmic geometry under the influence of matter and energy, the way a sleeper makes a mattress sag. One consequence is that a massive spinning object like Earth should spin up the empty space around it, the way twirling the straw in a Frappuccino sets the drink and the whole Venti-size cup spinning around with it, an effect called frame dragging. Astronomers think this effect, although minuscule for Earth, could play a role in the black hole dynamos that power quasars.

Empty space in the vicinity of Earth is indeed turning, Dr. Everitt reported at the news conference and in a paper prepared for the journal Physical Review Letters, at the leisurely rate of 37 one-thousandths of a second of arc — the equivalent of a human hair seen from 10 miles away — every year. With an uncertainty of 19 percent, that measurement was in agreement with Einstein’s predictions of 39 milliarcseconds.

Likewise, the “sag” should alter the space-time geometry around Earth, warping it from the Euclidean ideal and cutting an inch out of the Gravity Probe’s orbit around it, so that the circumference is slightly less than the Euclidean ideal of pi times the orbit’s diameter, a fact confirmed by the Stanford gyroscopes to an accuracy of 0.3 percent.

For Dr. Everitt, who joined the Gravity Probe experiment in 1962 as a young postdoctoral fellow and has worked on nothing else since, the announcement on Wednesday capped a career-long journey.

The experiment was conceived in 1959, but the technology to make these esoteric measurements did not yet exist, which is why the experiment took so long and cost so much. The gyroscopes, for example, were made of superconducting niobium spheres, the roundest balls ever manufactured, which then had to be flown in a lead bag to isolate them from any other influences in the universe, save the subversive curvature of space-time itself.

Shortly before the probe’s launching, Dr. Francis said the project had been canceled at least seven times, “depending on what you mean by canceled.” It was finally sent into orbit in 2004 and operated for some 17 months, but not all went well. When the scientists began analyzing their data, they discovered that patches of electrical charge on the niobium balls had generated extra torque on the gyroscopes, causing them to drift.

It would take five more years to understand the spurious signals and retrieve the gravity data by dint of an effort that Dr. Will called “nothing less than heroic.”

In the meantime, the NASA grant ran out. Dr. Everitt secured another one from Richard Fairbank, a financier and son of one of the experiment’s founders, William Fairbank, that was matched by NASA and Stanford. When that ran out and NASA turned him down for a new grant, Dr. Everitt obtained a $2.7 million grant from Turki al-Saud, a Stanford graduate and vice president for research institutes at the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia.

 

Wealth Matters: Taking the Time to Pick the Right Financial Adviser

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

In the past, there have been few people to consult about whom to pick. Accountants and lawyers have played this role, warily. But they would typically present two or three advisers and leave the final decision up to the investor.

Now Douglas Black, a 30-year brokerage industry veteran, has started a firm called SpringReef Partners that will screen and select financial advisers for wealthy families. While the amount of wealth needed to receive his advice is high — from $5 million to $50 million — his approach can help those intent on evaluating an adviser to fit their needs. His advice may be aimed at the wealthy, but anyone with money to invest can adopt his practices.

“Firms don’t do a very good job of matching adviser capability with client complexity,” Mr. Black said. “They haven’t taken the focus away from the advisers in determining who is going to end up with whom.”

Mr. Black, who started his career as a financial adviser and stepped down as the chief operating officer of UBS Wealth Management in 2010, is entering this business at an opportune time. Investors are particularly insecure about making the wrong choice.

Charlotte B. Beyer, founder and chief executive of the Institute for Private Investors, said her members were now screening eight to 10 advisers when they used to meet with two or three.

“That’s an enormous difference and an enormous time commitment,” Ms. Beyer said.

While wealthy investors may have made a lot of money and surely understand how complex the world is, they are just as afraid as anyone else of getting this choice wrong. So how do you pick the right adviser without being overwhelmed by the process?

TYPICAL MISTAKES Regardless of wealth, people make the same mistakes in selecting advisers.

Listening to family and friends for suggestions on money management — or, worse, picking family and friends to do it — can be a bad idea. First, there is no correlation between your sense about a person and that person’s ability to do a good job. Remember all the people who felt such affection for Bernard L. Madoff? And second, hiring a friend or relative makes firing that person tough.

Rushing the process is another mistake. Picking a financial adviser can be as serious as selecting a doctor, and it certainly should require more time than picking a paint color. But for many investors, even those who had to make tough decisions in business, it is about as interesting as watching that paint dry.

“People don’t interview enough people on the front end,” said Jim Grubman, owner of FamilyWealth Consulting, which works with advisers. “They’ll take someone else’s recommendations. What works for your friend or your colleague may not be the best fit for you.”

Relying on a name brand firm can be just as bad as going with someone you know. But selecting a boutique firm in the belief that smaller size means more attention for clients can be equally problematic.

“Our belief is there are exceptional advisers spread across all different types of platforms, but there are no great firms,” Mr. Black said.

QUESTIONS TO ASK Picking an adviser is an awful lot like choosing a spouse: you really want the relationship to last forever, to be rewarding and fulfilling, but if it happens to fall apart, you don’t want that to destroy you.

Mr. Black, whose firm is paid either a fixed fee or a percentage of assets for continuing monitoring, said he asked 18 questions of all firms and 17 of advisers. For firms, some of the major questions involve how the organization functions, its experience and risk-management practices and how it handles problems that arise.

For advisers, the criteria are a mix of set standards and questions. He will not work with any adviser who has fewer than seven years’ experience. One thing he found when he worked at UBS was that it generally took at least seven years for any financial malfeasance to surface. He said he also wanted to make sure that the adviser’s firm had broad experience with clients whose wealth levels were similar to his own client’s.

Yet, he said, the value his firm will bring to the selection process may be in the questions that do not have simple yes or no answers. The 17 criteria for advisers are listed on the firm’s Web site.

One simple statistic he looks at is how much additional money an adviser’s existing clients are asking him or her to manage. Mr. Black said most very wealthy people had several advisers from various stages in their lives. But the one who is doing the best job — as opposed to the friend from high school — is the one who gets the new money they are making.

Yet even lawyers and accountants who take the typical approach of making introductions to wealth advisers are aware that the complexity of both individual investments and the global economy requires more voices, not fewer.

View the original article here

Wealth Matters: Taking the Time to Pick the Right Financial Adviser

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

In the past, there have been few people to consult about whom to pick. Accountants and lawyers have played this role, warily. But they would typically present two or three advisers and leave the final decision up to the investor.

Now Douglas Black, a 30-year brokerage industry veteran, has started a firm called SpringReef Partners that will screen and select financial advisers for wealthy families. While the amount of wealth needed to receive his advice is high — from $5 million to $50 million — his approach can help those intent on evaluating an adviser to fit their needs. His advice may be aimed at the wealthy, but anyone with money to invest can adopt his practices.

“Firms don’t do a very good job of matching adviser capability with client complexity,” Mr. Black said. “They haven’t taken the focus away from the advisers in determining who is going to end up with whom.”

Mr. Black, who started his career as a financial adviser and stepped down as the chief operating officer of UBS Wealth Management in 2010, is entering this business at an opportune time. Investors are particularly insecure about making the wrong choice.

Charlotte B. Beyer, founder and chief executive of the Institute for Private Investors, said her members were now screening eight to 10 advisers when they used to meet with two or three.

“That’s an enormous difference and an enormous time commitment,” Ms. Beyer said.

While wealthy investors may have made a lot of money and surely understand how complex the world is, they are just as afraid as anyone else of getting this choice wrong. So how do you pick the right adviser without being overwhelmed by the process?

TYPICAL MISTAKES Regardless of wealth, people make the same mistakes in selecting advisers.

Listening to family and friends for suggestions on money management — or, worse, picking family and friends to do it — can be a bad idea. First, there is no correlation between your sense about a person and that person’s ability to do a good job. Remember all the people who felt such affection for Bernard L. Madoff? And second, hiring a friend or relative makes firing that person tough.

Rushing the process is another mistake. Picking a financial adviser can be as serious as selecting a doctor, and it certainly should require more time than picking a paint color. But for many investors, even those who had to make tough decisions in business, it is about as interesting as watching that paint dry.

“People don’t interview enough people on the front end,” said Jim Grubman, owner of FamilyWealth Consulting, which works with advisers. “They’ll take someone else’s recommendations. What works for your friend or your colleague may not be the best fit for you.”

Relying on a name brand firm can be just as bad as going with someone you know. But selecting a boutique firm in the belief that smaller size means more attention for clients can be equally problematic.

“Our belief is there are exceptional advisers spread across all different types of platforms, but there are no great firms,” Mr. Black said.

QUESTIONS TO ASK Picking an adviser is an awful lot like choosing a spouse: you really want the relationship to last forever, to be rewarding and fulfilling, but if it happens to fall apart, you don’t want that to destroy you.

Mr. Black, whose firm is paid either a fixed fee or a percentage of assets for continuing monitoring, said he asked 18 questions of all firms and 17 of advisers. For firms, some of the major questions involve how the organization functions, its experience and risk-management practices and how it handles problems that arise.

For advisers, the criteria are a mix of set standards and questions. He will not work with any adviser who has fewer than seven years’ experience. One thing he found when he worked at UBS was that it generally took at least seven years for any financial malfeasance to surface. He said he also wanted to make sure that the adviser’s firm had broad experience with clients whose wealth levels were similar to his own client’s.

Yet, he said, the value his firm will bring to the selection process may be in the questions that do not have simple yes or no answers. The 17 criteria for advisers are listed on the firm’s Web site.

One simple statistic he looks at is how much additional money an adviser’s existing clients are asking him or her to manage. Mr. Black said most very wealthy people had several advisers from various stages in their lives. But the one who is doing the best job — as opposed to the friend from high school — is the one who gets the new money they are making.

Yet even lawyers and accountants who take the typical approach of making introductions to wealth advisers are aware that the complexity of both individual investments and the global economy requires more voices, not fewer.

View the original article here

Wealth Matters: Taking the Time to Pick the Right Financial Adviser

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

In the past, there have been few people to consult about whom to pick. Accountants and lawyers have played this role, warily. But they would typically present two or three advisers and leave the final decision up to the investor.

Now Douglas Black, a 30-year brokerage industry veteran, has started a firm called SpringReef Partners that will screen and select financial advisers for wealthy families. While the amount of wealth needed to receive his advice is high — from $5 million to $50 million — his approach can help those intent on evaluating an adviser to fit their needs. His advice may be aimed at the wealthy, but anyone with money to invest can adopt his practices.

“Firms don’t do a very good job of matching adviser capability with client complexity,” Mr. Black said. “They haven’t taken the focus away from the advisers in determining who is going to end up with whom.”

Mr. Black, who started his career as a financial adviser and stepped down as the chief operating officer of UBS Wealth Management in 2010, is entering this business at an opportune time. Investors are particularly insecure about making the wrong choice.

Charlotte B. Beyer, founder and chief executive of the Institute for Private Investors, said her members were now screening eight to 10 advisers when they used to meet with two or three.

“That’s an enormous difference and an enormous time commitment,” Ms. Beyer said.

While wealthy investors may have made a lot of money and surely understand how complex the world is, they are just as afraid as anyone else of getting this choice wrong. So how do you pick the right adviser without being overwhelmed by the process?

TYPICAL MISTAKES Regardless of wealth, people make the same mistakes in selecting advisers.

Listening to family and friends for suggestions on money management — or, worse, picking family and friends to do it — can be a bad idea. First, there is no correlation between your sense about a person and that person’s ability to do a good job. Remember all the people who felt such affection for Bernard L. Madoff? And second, hiring a friend or relative makes firing that person tough.

Rushing the process is another mistake. Picking a financial adviser can be as serious as selecting a doctor, and it certainly should require more time than picking a paint color. But for many investors, even those who had to make tough decisions in business, it is about as interesting as watching that paint dry.

“People don’t interview enough people on the front end,” said Jim Grubman, owner of FamilyWealth Consulting, which works with advisers. “They’ll take someone else’s recommendations. What works for your friend or your colleague may not be the best fit for you.”

Relying on a name brand firm can be just as bad as going with someone you know. But selecting a boutique firm in the belief that smaller size means more attention for clients can be equally problematic.

“Our belief is there are exceptional advisers spread across all different types of platforms, but there are no great firms,” Mr. Black said.

QUESTIONS TO ASK Picking an adviser is an awful lot like choosing a spouse: you really want the relationship to last forever, to be rewarding and fulfilling, but if it happens to fall apart, you don’t want that to destroy you.

Mr. Black, whose firm is paid either a fixed fee or a percentage of assets for continuing monitoring, said he asked 18 questions of all firms and 17 of advisers. For firms, some of the major questions involve how the organization functions, its experience and risk-management practices and how it handles problems that arise.

For advisers, the criteria are a mix of set standards and questions. He will not work with any adviser who has fewer than seven years’ experience. One thing he found when he worked at UBS was that it generally took at least seven years for any financial malfeasance to surface. He said he also wanted to make sure that the adviser’s firm had broad experience with clients whose wealth levels were similar to his own client’s.

Yet, he said, the value his firm will bring to the selection process may be in the questions that do not have simple yes or no answers. The 17 criteria for advisers are listed on the firm’s Web site.

One simple statistic he looks at is how much additional money an adviser’s existing clients are asking him or her to manage. Mr. Black said most very wealthy people had several advisers from various stages in their lives. But the one who is doing the best job — as opposed to the friend from high school — is the one who gets the new money they are making.

Yet even lawyers and accountants who take the typical approach of making introductions to wealth advisers are aware that the complexity of both individual investments and the global economy requires more voices, not fewer.

View the original article here

Kyocera Echo available right now for Sprint Premier customers, tests your patience

 By Sam Sheffer posted Apr 14th 2011 8:51PM If you're a Sprint Premier customer and are planning to purchase the company's eccentric dual-screen Android smartphone, listen up. Yes, it's due to launch in just three days, but the wireless company is now offering its loyal customers a chance to order the Echo right now. If you decide to jump the gun, you'll be happy to know that Sprint is waiving upgrade fees and will ship you the device for zero bucks. So, if this offer sounds tempting -- and you qualify -- hit the source link to get a 72-hour advantage on everyone else.

 

Work Smarter, Not Harder: Tips for Linux Administration Done Right

Interrupt driven. That's how a lot of sysadmins define their jobs, and it's absolutely true. We spend a good portion of every day running from problem to problem. Whether it be a user who can't get their email, to a jammed printer, to a server that's got a failed disk, we friendly neighborhood system administrators have plenty to do on a daily basis. However, we're also some of the most resourceful people in any given organization. It's time we used that resourcefulness to make our lives easier. I'm going to run through some techniques and ways of thinking that will help you better manage your workload and increase the overall quality of the services you provide to your organization.

Here are a few values that my techniques are built on. They may seem basic, but it's amazing how you can lose sight of the larger picture and your value to the organization when you're playing fireman. It's difficult to think strategically if you are acting tactically all the time.

You want to do as little of this as you can get away with. The job is difficult enough, so figure out ways to make your life easier.

Good Tools? are like gold.

Build them, download them, or buy them — they are worth it!

If you have to work, its better to do prep work up front than panic work.

Panic work will take years off your life, tick off your loved ones, and make you grumpy. Avoid it. Be prepared, like a Boy Scout.

Reuse, Recycle, Reduce.

Leverage work done before you. Use other code, or pieces from projects. Don't reinvent the wheel. Document your work.

Think, think, think.

It wouldn't be called "Working Smarter" if you didn't think. So do that.

Hardware is the foundation of what we do as system administrators, so it behooves you to ensure your hardware is up to task. We've all got systems we've inherited, or systems that are old and dying that are under our care. If you don't like a particular system, or it's got issues, quit grumbling about it, get it off the back burner, and fix the darn thing. A system that needs constant hand-holding doesn't do your organization any favors. Here are a few other hardware-related tips that help out a bunch:

Goes by iLO if you're using an HP server, or DRAC if you're using a Dell, or LOM if you're on a Sun. This lets you connect remotely to your server and get a console on it, or power cycle it, or do remote diagnostics. It's invaluable. Insist that all your servers have this. HP servers include it by default.If you can't get a server with iLO, you can fake it. Remote console servers like a Cyclades unit will get you a serial text console on a given server, and a remote power strip like a BayTech or APC unit can get you the ability to power cycle a machine. Alternatively, you can build your own using an old computer and some X10 gear like I did at home — though I don't recommend this for your business!

RAID

Not the bug spray, but a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. Your servers should all have RAID-1 (a pair of disks, mirrored) at a minimum, unless you're doing something like Hadoop. This protects against a disk failure, and will save you time by not having to rebuild a system if a disk fails.

Redundancy

From redundant power supplies, to redundant network interface cards using ethernet bonding — no one ever got fired for making something too redundant.

Virtualization and the Cloud

Don't be afraid of virtualization or the cloud. If your application can tolerate being migrated to a virtual machine or offloaded to a cloud provider, seriously consider it. You may wind up saving a lot of hardware-related headache.Virtualization and the cloud are not "one-size-fits-all" solutions, however. Use good judgement and be sure to run many pilot tests before deploying your application on these platforms.

By making the best use of hardware, you'll be able to focus more on the services you're providing rather than dealing with hardware failures — or having to drive to the data center at 2 a.m.

View the original article here