Always fun, but I find this video from 2014 better and it actually explains what we see.
So if you liked the video in the article you should love that one.
284 posts • joined 14 Nov 2007
Always fun, but I find this video from 2014 better and it actually explains what we see.
So if you liked the video in the article you should love that one.
If we break history into three parts.
1. The period before humans could do anything about this at all, i.e. all of it up to about now.
2. From the point in time and forward where this will be trivial to detect and deflect.
3. The period of time between part one and two.
Given that period three is quite short in this time frame I would argue that the odds of this happening is insignificant. So, if you want to build big lasers, fine, go ahead*, but I find that justification here a little thin.
*If you mount them on sharks however, I will call homeland security.
If I understand these things correctly fuel in space propulsion is just not a source of energy but also mass to push against to propel the craft forward. That is, you throw particles backwards to gain a momentum forward. This presents a problem of course, since you will start to run out of stuff, fuel, to throw backwards. It is also why harnessing nuclear power is not as straight forward as turning nuclear power into electricity. There is also a problem that if you can throw stuff backwards at greater speed to save on the fuel, but since momentum is only velocity to the power one and kinetic energy is to the power of two you get far less increase in velocity per amount of energy that way. However if you manage to change momentum without throwing stuff out, you can circumvent all of this, all you need to care about is the energy requirement.
I think space is quite interesting in itself, they should really stop enhancing everything. It is actually often quite hard to find the unaltered photos. So then the high def picture of Pluto out there is false colour, the Ceres composite animation shows that it has very high peaks and craters and a spectacular view of the stars and Venus isn't cloudy. And apparently the ISS goes really fast and the cities on Earth are all burning.
You are not in marketing, you are really into education and most of the visual stuff from NASA (and other agencies) has the same educational value as a fantasy poster.
Mine is the mundane one.
They are able to put people into orbit though, like USA...oh, wait.
Wouldn't he say something a little more cryptic, i.e. rambling?
"Two BEAST with backs this. IT is a voyager or like to Hitch Ride A Ride With back home."
Not that can I capture his essence in any way.
Does anybody have any thoughts on this one?
Seems that it is bundling some GWX crap into a security patch for IE.
"The robotic boom is laying down an important milestone in the realisation of the fourth international revolution,"
I thought you had just misquoted, but no, the source really says fourth international. So then I had to look it up. Turns out it is some Soviet-French communist thingie from mid last century. I must admit, I never saw a communist revolution (against other communists from what I understood out of 46 seconds of wikipedia reading) as the logical outcome of advances in robotics, but it kind of fits.
The freezing point of water is changed very little with pressure when compared to the boiling point. So basically it will freeze as zero degrees as normal.
I wrote a semi-lengthy post on the similar topic of what is a hacker years back. I think the idea applies, so I dug it out and it follows bellow. The short version is that whatever you think a word or expression should mean is rather irrelevant. What matters is what most people think it means, and that is all that actually defines a word. When universities all over the world, the media and whatever part of the public that has any interest of the topic use an expression one way, you are more than welcome to fight for any other use of it, but I fail to see what benefit you will gain from that fight.
My older post was this:
Words are tricky, they are just a bunch of sounds put together, and they have no natural/god/God given meaning. Some sound alike, some doesn't. Some change and mean the same, some doesn't change, but change meaning. Their meaning is given by what we think they mean. That presents a problem of course, because you and me are not alike. Sometimes we don't even think alike, this might be shocking for you to hear, but just change what you think the words I just wrote meant, and you will be all right. You may also ask an adult for advice, or you may give them some. Back to the words we use. When you say a word and think it means something, and I think it means something else, I will hear something else than you say. So how does this work out, we could as well skip the talking all together then. Well, a long time ago somebody managed to agree on what some words meant. I don't know who those people were, but it isn't important. Lets say they were children so you can say that in a conversation at a party sometime. Say it like you have thought about it a lot. It sounds very deep, even though it isn't, but you might get lucky because of it. If you don't understand what I mean by "getting lucky", don't ask an adult about it, ask your older brother instead. Anyway, these people managed to agree on a few solid good words and what they meant. One word perhaps was "banana". "Banana" one said and pointed at the fruit we mean by the word "banana", and everybody nodded because they knew it was so. Soon we agreed on a whole bunch of words, and we could communicate. As time passed some words turned out to be too long, too complicated or too “uncool” for the youngsters, so they changed them to shorter and better words. The elder people didn't agree on this, but since they die first they tend to loose. So some words were thus changed and shortened, and had added coolness. Sometimes old unused words changed meaning because the youngsters didn’t like that the elder people knew what they were talking about. When the elder people once again died the old meaning was forgotten. I will try to end this now, so I'll get to the point. Once in a while some people try to invent something, often a whole new field of things, and they invent words to go with them. They said “This is the ultra portable cellular cordless telephone!", and the public didn't nod because they knew it wasn't so, it was too long. So they said, it is a cell phone then? The clever inventors then said: "Yes, a cell phone is what it is, will you buy it?" The not so clever ones insisted that it wasn't a cell phone or a cell, and were never heard from again.
Some time ago somebody broke into computer. When I say break, they didn't actually crack it open or throw it to the ground or something like that. They accessed it without the owner’s permission, and managed to get pass the security measures that the owner had placed to prevent that access. Somebody else referred to this person as a hacker to the general population, who didn't really know what a computer was or what a hacker was, but they nodded and we all knew it was so. Except for a few geeks that thought being a hacker sounded much more cool than being called a geek. So the geeks forfeit the quest for a life, and the quest to someday get laid (again ask your older brother about this not an adult), and they picked up this new futile quest to be called hackers and nobody cared.
A word only carries the meaning that most of us think it does. You are of course free to think something else, but don’t expect to be understood (or get laid).
I’ll get my coat.
Lets face it, it is quite featureless. That is, from a picture point of view. Space agencies are funded by the public and the public want nice pictures. I am sure they can do some false colour magic and maybe some of the moons can turn out to be worth a picture or two, but it does not compare to Jupiter or Saturn.
How to get your science funded:
1. Find something you want study.
2. Will it produce a nice picture as result, directly or indirectly? If no, go to 1.
Update: So the checking of the updates finally ended last night and I selected some and deselected others and hit install and went to bed while my computer and MS did their thing. Usually they play nice with each other, but last night MS probably did something nasty so my computer did a hard reset (pulled up it's panties and went to the bathroom) in middle of the install (mid action, wink wink). I think that is the second time ever this box has actually crashed like that, so kind of nerve wrecking. Turn it off and go to sleep.
Tried again this morning and did half of the updates to see if that worked.
Tried to do the other half in the evening after work and now my computer doesn't even want to reach out to windows update and shake hands. Error code 0x80244019.
Managed to find some MS tool that eventually fixed it, but I am kind of nervous of what that tool actually did to my computer.
Is it supposed to be this hard? My computer and Microsoft have gone steady for years, but now Microsoft has changed and I am not sure they should be together any more. It feels like Microsoft want to brainwash her.
And checking for updates now takes forever.
I don't have time for this, I have sleep and work to do.
Teaching is one of the areas that you can nearly pour endless amounts of resources into and still have an effect. In addition there is a limit to how big groups of children you can manage as one adult. It does not matter whatever technical aid you have at your disposal. A rather big part of a teacher's job in a classroom is to keep the pupils focused and maintain some sort of order. That these people are able to do that with thirty children is quite amazing, and do not think you can expand much on that number. The idea that you can hand thirty 14-year-olds some sort of tablet and leave the room and learning will happen is rather stupid.
So the teacher is not going anywhere. What can happen of course is that he or she will get to spend more time in the classroom and thus have more hours per week actually teaching. So in the long run, maybe fewer teachers are needed, but not by much. But technology will free up resources. This is one thing, which I think is far off if you are to grade in any meaningful way. The concept of flipped classroom with lectures on video is a far more promising venue. But since you can't get rid of the teacher these extra resources will hopefully result in more teaching and learning.
Throwing in my explanation here as well.
It is basically down to the Doppler effect. Particles moving towards the light will perceive the light as a higher frequency. If the light has a slighter lower frequency than required for excite an electron then that increase will be enough for it to happen. When the electron later decays it will emit a photon of the same high frequency. So you have "low" energy photon meeting the particle and another "high" energy photon leaving some time later. That extra energy has to be taken from it's movement.
Windows update is stuck at "Checking for updates..." on my computer.
EDIT: Nvm, it just took nearly ten minutes of massive CPU activity and no disk activity to get it done. Now all I have to do is to read all updates carefully to avoid getting Windows 10. Yay!
This will be different from country to country I expect, but most likely you cannot set a limit. Unfortunately you can't in many cases have clear cut laws, but rather have to have a little more vague wording. So what your right to privacy comes down to is what you can reasonably expect and what is reasonably is what we have the courts to decide. Over time you will get precedences for most cases and so on. Reasonably is just too hard to define. In my bedroom with the drapes shut I should expect privacy and usually in my living room, but when there is clear sight into my living room from the next building over I should maybe not. However if it is far away and they use a telescope with a camera it is a violation again (see Skyline). And so on.
If there is a need to regulate this with new laws it will be easier to simply regulate the whole area around residents and up to commercial air space. With a good camera today, and they will just continue to get better, 10m or a few hundred meters does not really matter. Simply ban them from residential areas and throw in a few reasonably exceptions.
Sorry, we only got wormholes out here. If you wanted black monoliths you should have taken the last exit. Here is what you do, get back onto the interplanetary transport network and head inwards about 4.3 AU, or about halfway towards the star the in the middle. When you exit, follow the music or a high pitch noise and you will find your way there.
Well, here is the flaw in your argument. The argument isn't that one should cut all existing efforts to prevent terrorism. What they are talking about here is an increase in effort. So to take your example. It would be like the government to ban gathering of people in public places to prevent spreading of the measles. That is, today, with a working vaccine and next to nil new cases.
This is just one of these things that can't be left to the industry as it isn't today either. What a third party insurance (I think that is what you call it at least) covers is defined by the government, or rather governments, and not the insurance companies. Whether this the insurance comes from the car company itself or an insurance company should not really matter. And we can easily see that we will be required to keep the third party insurance regardless do have an insurance company cover us for any liability that the car company manages to put on us in the legally dubious EULA.
And on this months menu we recommend to avoid these items, and while this might help you avoid Microsoft Muppetry (MM) we make no guarantees. Not suitable for small parts, may contain children. Batteries not included.
KB3083710 - still no information about what this does, but it is important they tell me.
And these three were unhidden once again:
KB2952664 - haha,
KB3035583 - update app *shudder*
KB2999226 - probably OK, but it mentions windows 10, so neh
If you have physical access you have access. And even regardless of that I am not quite sure I see it as such a big problem that the only perimeter is the physical perimeter as they say. A problem perhaps, but meh. It is amazing the kind of damage you can do with a solid wrench for instance, a bag of coal powder if you want to make it sophisticated or ordinary explosives if you can't bother. And if you have access to a nuclear facility and are not capable of smuggling these things into it then I do not think you should have access to a nuclear facility.
The lack of airgap is troubling indeed though.
It is a version of something I have noticed in the interaction between engineers and economists (used broadly here). Engineers tend to not have any agenda when doing calculations or presenting possibilities, but while in the economists world every thing has. So when an engineer provides and estimate, or presents any other kind of work, to an economist, the economist thinks it is something that can be negotiated. Not of course realizing that he or she is trying to negotiate with the laws of physics. "No, I can't both make this solid steel and float."
This of course works the other way. When doing their calculations engineers take data presented to them as fact, even though they come from economists. Not realizing that when they calculate that something will be too expensive the supplier had added 200% on the prize on all building cost to have some room for negotiating. This of course screws both parties as it won't be built, cheating the engineer of the contract and the supplier of supplying the goods needed.
It was the lack of capitalization, wasn't it? I picked up on that too.
Once upon a time I was a computer geek. It was when it was all fairly new and I liked to fiddle with it and figure out how it all worked. At some point the computer itself with the operating system became just a tool and when you have learned to use a tool any change for change itself it just and annoyance. My previous OS was win2k and I held out to the bitter end. I knew how it worked, it was stable and it didn't do a whole lot of things I never asked it to do. Windows 7 still kind of works, it is stable, but I have spent a whole lot more time to manage it and keep it in line than I ever did with win2k. To add to that Microsoft has now forced me to carefully investigate every single patch they send so I can figure out if they are legit or just some crap they try to force feed us.
So why not Linux? Because I not fluent enough in it and I have so far not seen the benefit in changing when compared to the time it will take me to bring me up to speed. And, as I said I am not a computer geek in that fashion any more. I have my tool, it works, it does what I want of it, why can they just leave me alone? I paid for it. Why do they have to cripple their own software all the time and mess it up? What I am trying to figure out now is when the last chance will be to get a new computer with Windows 7.
Sidenote: I tried the other day to figure out what I can do in Office Word 365 (what is Word actually called now?) that I wasn't able to do in Word 2.0. I still can't place a picture where I want it and expect it to stay, I still can't tell what DPI I want on it and page break bugs are still around. So the same limitations are still around, but I just can't remember if there are any new features I actually use.
No, nothing like the end of BSG. If you think that was hell then the end of Andromeda was a very special level of hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.
What is going on is that they are no longer in the market of selling operating systems. They want one version of windows out there and that is it. It will be free and money will come from somewhere else. They thus no longer have any reason to tread carefully around previous customers because if we do not join the new platform then we are no longer a customer.
As has been the norm on updates recently I have to read the support information on all patches and figure out if they are a tool to spy on me, bug me or cripple my system. So, nah, I unchecked that one.
"It's time to extend the Reg automatic comment generator to pre-populate the comments section of any battery related story..."
Isn't it quite clear that this has already been done?
We are trying to tell you batteries have not improved drastically the last 10-15 years, and while you drag in different very much older battery technologies I fail to see why? Lithium-ion battery technology is twice that old and yes, it has improved, but very slowly and not by much.
It improved some up to 2000 and after that not so much. A little higher energy density per volume, less per weight. After that it has mainly become cheaper. So in 25 years we have not really had any new technology in battery technology, just improvement on the old. And in a way this is also really just that.
Computing power per watt* has increased a lot in this period. Also computing power by volume. This means you can have a smaller device that consumes less power and still have a bigger battery by volume. This is not due to better battery technology.
*Or many other usages of electric power, like lighting.
I fail to see how we have the technology to do this. We are barely able to detect the drop in light coming from a star when a planet pass in front of it. It has to be a huge planet and close to the star and the star has to be small for it to be done. Still next to this blazing inferno of jamming across the entire electromagnetic spectrum we expect to pick up incredible weak radiowaves that isn't even directed at us? This is even before we start to consider the likelyhood that they are close by, that they are in that exact period of their technology evolution that they use radiowaves at this strength (we are more or less past it ourself) if they ever went down that path, that their atmosphere doesn't block it regardless etc etc
There has to be cooler and more promising things to explore in space for that kind of money.
Yes, it is inverse square law, but also only that. So each time you double the distance to the sun you end up with a quarter of the light, but then you have to go much further out to double the distance again and so on. This means that even though your speed is more or less constant when you are far enough out the light from the sun diminishes slower and slower which again is why we still have contact with the Voyager probes.
So with Pluto at about 40 AU you have about 1/1600 of the light remaining. The sun is quite a lot more brighter than the moon than that. About 400 000 times brighter in fact.
Since this is such a rare occurrence and a second is so small, why do we do it? I have yet to hear any reasonable argument for. To get an offset of five minutes we need a millennium. So maybe people are a bit nostalgic (autistic) and need the time to be 12 when the sun is in the south. Guess what, it isn't. Daylight saving time offsets that by an hour, but alright lets look apart from that. The time zones are quite wide and usually expanding into the last one and the next one in some places, so you have up to half an hour offset there as well. But, let us assume you don't use daylight saving time and live exactly on a longitude divisible by 15 then sun still will be in the south at 12 only on four occurrences each year due astronomical time is not sundial time, but mean solar time and the offset called the equation of time is up to 16 minutes.
Can anybody enlighten me as to why we use leap seconds? It seems to me that for it to become an offset greater than what we experience throughout the year anyway we will have to wait over three thousand years. Isn't that something we could leave for that generation?
You had acoustic couplers! You lucky bastard. In my day we had to do the drumming when father used TCP/IP over bongo drums to download his porn. I took us three days to get a nipple.
However, I doubt that is a photo, or a photo of Nix.
What a fascinating thing to contemplate. Yes, everything above will go outwards, but I am not sure that it will go off into deep space, not even if you cut it above center of the mass (geo orbit). Essentially you will have an object in orbit where you have removed some of the mass and shifted the center of mass considerably in the non-uniform gravity field, but the velocity is unchanged. This will result in a high elliptic orbit, if it is rigid. I don't think it will be rigid. So you will at least for some time have a large whip spinning and yanking, possibly ripping itself apart, in an highly irregular orbit. Which is fine, not much so far out anyway.
If you sever the bit near the Atmosphere I agree that it will fall down and the bit furthest out will burn up before it hits. Something I would love to see and nobody will be able to compute the outcome of. The wire in front should push the air aside, no? So higher speed, so you might get friction heating to air on the sides instead of compression in front. I dunno, as I said, would love to see it.
But what if you cut it further out, lets say 10 000 km up. It would fall down, but it's velocity and altitude of the center of mass would indicate that it should be able to enter an elliptic orbit. However it is tied to the ground, but that bit would burn off some distance into the atmosphere. Which means the burnt off end would dangle into the atmosphere and drag the rest down unless it gets yanked out by the rest of the wire gaining higher speed. Which it would, but then it would probably bounce back and frequently touch the atmosphere. So for days or months the remaining wire would whip one of the ends into the atmosphere burning it off in what I will hope be a spectacular manner.
Other countries have billion also and use it correctly. Numeration by groups of six is the only thing that makes sense. If you insist on having it mean groups of three then you should skip thousand and let million be ten to the power of three, billion be to the power of six etc.
On the other hand, it wouldn't be the first word (or set of words in this instance) that have lost touch with its origins and that is language I suppose. I just object to the long scale being the odd one out. So I will continue to use it correctly in my language and incorrectly in English :)
You have to love wikifiddlers sometimes, they make lists and maps so you don't have to.
Thanks for answering.
As I understand it all the heavier elements are made in supernovas, and this is the only known source for them. This would then mean most of the radioactive elements. There is of course radioactive decay which in a sense make new elements, but the start of these chains of decay has to be made in a supernova. Nearly nothing affects the half life of these elements and all of this material in this solar system was made before it formed. So there should be no difference between the radioactive elements in Ceres as that on Earth. The original amount will of course be different. There are four main decay chains where one is extinct in this solar system (or nearly). Whether it is enough to heat Ceres to any significant degree however I do not know, but I still see no reason why it shouldn't be so.*
About your last factoid. How does that turn out with any anti-freeze thrown into the mix? Salt or ammonia for instance?
*This does not of course mean that there is no such reason. I am a firm believer that my understanding of the science does not have any impact on how it actually is.
I would like to know how you know that the heating from radioactive decay would be minuscule. On Earth the heat escaping isn't more than 7 TW and it is a lot bigger and the crust is quite thin, I would expect the loss of heat would go a lot slower the thicker the crust is. The Earth being bigger means of course that it also has a lot more heat stored and radioactive material to heat it up. However 7 TW isn't all that much and this is with a planet with core that is molten due to the heat. Also the interior of Ceres would only need to be kept maybe fifty degrees warmer than it's mean surface temperature to keep water with a dash of anti-freeze liquid. So, how do you know the radioactive heating would be minuscule?
Also you can throw in the pressure that affects the freezing point a little.
I like Sony as a manufacturer, mostly. I am not a big consumer of electronics, but I am very very picky. Of the products I have owned or been exposed to via friends or family that I think are made with thought and quality, all are Sony. It really feels like their engineers never brute force themselves around a problem, and while powerful inside their design try hard to tone it down.
Anyway, when it comes to security Sony feels like a troll. Nearly literally, the troll from some fantasy world hired to keep folks out or in. Big, brutish, can crush you with it's finger, but easily fooled and can, in an attempt to catch you, level to the ground whatever it is you were not allowed to enter. Also its literacy on the law is quite low on the count that its literacy is quite low and that it does not really see the benefit in obeying any.
On this count I try my hardest to find any product that isn't Sony when I need something new.
No, they are not. You have just misunderstood what they are about. They are telling how many people it takes to power the bus, while you look at how many journeys one person can provide fuel for during a year.
The former number makes it easy to compare it to other energy sources and if it can replace them. It is an odd one, but it takes into account the finite supply and you can disregard the size of the population. The latter number can be used to look at how big the supply into the market can be.
I am not all that convinced true AI is anywhere close, and I am glad. I do believe though that AI robots will be the next big, like paradigm big, move in technology and that it might not be all that far off. We have had robot assembly for a while now, but robots that we start to see that manages to act outside a confined strictly regulated environment is new.
Resource harvesting, cultivation, waste management, recycling, transport etc can all be automated. Industrialization shifted us from labour intensive to energy intensive. This might actually shift it back to labour intensive ways, but done by robots. Yes, robots do need energy, but there is no reason that they can be cheaper in that regard to run than humans. And it is quite clear that manual labour in many areas is less energy consuming that using industrial tools.
I am not sure though that mankind will benefit from it, but that is another story.
You heard it here first people, now that it is predicted it won't happen.
I'll grant you that it is a simplification, but I think generalization is wrong. It is a simplification in the way that by everyone it is implied that they only mean humans. It does sound a little harsh to call you non-human, but I mean no offense by it at all. I am sure that you are a lovely...person(?) and all, but we all know that to be human you have to like chocolate. It is simply a part of the human experience, like music.
Note: Those that suffer from some sort of impairment or illness that prevents them from eating chocolate would still enjoy chocolate if they could and thus are still humans.
Second note: This comment is an attempt at humor, another human trait. Please do not get offended by it's content in a serious way. Do however feel free to get offended in an ironic way.
Kind of weird that in the last episode the right choice was the ignore the wish of an entire planet and put them all at great risk on the long shot that some unknown giant space birdie wouldn't go full blown toddler on the nearest gravitational well. All because the right choice on TV is always "doing the right thing", like in the moral dilemmas "Could you kill one guy if it was the only way to save a planet." and if you just say no then it will magically work out anyway.* While in this episode the conclusion is: "Sometimes the choices you have are bad ones, and you still have to choose."
It would have made a little sense if at least this was an argument between Clara and the Doctor, but it isn't, he endorsed her choice on the moon. And anyway, I do not think any characters opinion of reality should affect said reality, but in this world it clearly does. Stick to idealism: It works out. Stick to pragmatism: It works out.
Overall a watchable episode though. I just wish the new doctor had some consistency in this new dark persona of his.
*I am so glad TV-writers are not doctors doing triage.
"I nearly got it wrong." she said, NO, you did get it wrong! It was a no brainer. All the humans (on the important continents facing the moon) voted kill it*, and it was the right choice. And I was sighing a relief, will this new version of doctor Who come with a once in a while making the right choice in moral dilemmas. Making the right choice are in very limited supply in the TV and movie world, and it frustrates me deeply. "Stop dragging it out and make the call! It is not a choice because there is only one option!", I scream to my TV**. And then the characters demonstrate to my disbelief that there is a choice after all, and to my surprise (not really anymore) the story that unfolds afterwards is not a story to hammer into us that stupendously bad choice the character made had dire consequences and the moral is don't be stupid. No, it hammers into us that we when presented with these "dilemmas" we should make the "bold" (not bold at all, but rather cowardly) choice, put millions or billions*** at other lives at risk and it will all work out.
Back to my sigh of relief when the lights went out on Earth and I thought I finally would have at least once somebody make the right choice. Then she pushes abort. And there is no chaos and destruction, and there is no being yelled at by this new doctor that is a breath of fresh air of not caring. No, there are bunnies and unicorns, but the doctor gets yelled at a bit.
So, yes, SuccessCase, I do not get it either, but people seem to like this. And I would like to understand why. Does anybody here think it was the right choice she made? Care to explain?
*Well, they turned it off in massive grids, so it might have been a government decision.
**In my head at least.
***And in this instance actually against their will. Why did you ask them Clara? You sure are a rotten person, despicable.
Iron Man, is that you? I didn't recognize you with that mask.
You find the bottom and work your way upwards.
Come on guys, if we pull together we can make even more lame suggestions, I am sure.
I have trouble with the theory that it is made up of two bodies that fused together after a collision. While I see that it is possible, after all with such low gravity the two bodies could have collided with a speed as low as their combined escape velocity that isn't more than walking pace, and a slow one at that. Possible doesn't equal to likely in my humble opinion though. Wouldn't it be far more likely with the somewhat random orbits these things have that any rocks that collided would hit at far greater speeds?
Anybody enlightened out there that could tell me what I am missing?
Oh, and well done ESA for letting Rosetta take part in popular culture and take picture for her snapgram media.
It isn't, it would rip itself apart if it was. The rotation period is about 13 hours.