Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Scientists Complete Universe Millennium Simulation 375

Posted by timothy from the prayer-wheels-can-stop dept.
james tech writes "The Virgo Consortium recently completed its massive "Millennium Simulation", tracing the universe's evolution from its early origins to present day. To simplify the computations, they considered only dark matter which composes most of the universe. Using a 512-node cluster with IBM processors, the group produced over 20 terabytes of data with some of the most breathtaking images of the universe never seen. A visible matter simulation is underway, at a lower resolution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Complete Universe Millennium Simulation More

Scientists Complete Universe Millennium Simulation

Comments Filter:

  • impressive (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:08AM (#12992553)
    Wow, this is some impressive stuff indeed.... Of course I'm talking about their "not yet slashdotted" webserver that's probably handling a lot of big 50MB downloads right now.

  • Total Millenium Vortex (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:08AM (#12992554)
    The scientists are working on future versions of the software that will exptrapolate the whole Millenium simulation from a piece of pie.
    • s/pie/fairy\ cake/;g

      You're welcome.
    • The simulation is an amazing tool to teach current scientific theories. It's a testament to the programming abilities of the creators. What it isn't, is evidence that Dark Matter exists. I've heard of simulations on how the eye has evolved over time and into existance. It's a great teaching tool, but it isn't evidence that evolution is correct (as many people claim it is. Were these people scientists, no. They were slashdotters. But this post is directed at slashdotters and not scientists). Before I get mo

      • Dark matter is "observed" indirectly through gravitational effects. It is not that the scientists doubt its existence, it is just that they cannot observe it directly, hence the name "dark".

        A crude example would be if you were looking out your window at a lake. You might see waves caused by fish swimming below, but you would not be able to describe the fish, because you only saw the wave.

  • Talk about bloat (Score:5, Funny)

    by sygin ( 659338 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:10AM (#12992557)
    "20 terabytes of data" This has to be the most bloated screensaver ever!

  • Caveat -- cosmology not far from understood (Score:5, Insightful)

    by helioquake ( 841463 ) * on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:11AM (#12992558) Journal
    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are -- if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- R.P. Feynman

    I feel that this quote is appropriate, as I believe this type of simulation possibly cannot contain every essential physics that governs the evolution of the Universe. Some oversimplification must be present and some tweaks (e.g. dark matter) may go into the modeling to match whatever we see it today.

    This isn't the end of the study of cosmology. That's all I'm trying to say.
    • Of course, in the title, I meant to say "cosmology far from understood"...geez, I need to get some sleep.
    • I don't think their point was to try and end the study, fta:

      This combines the largest simulation of the growth of dark matter structure ever carried out with new techniques for following the formation and evolution of the visible components. We show that baryon-induced features in the initial conditions of the Universe are reflected in distorted form in the low-redshift galaxy distribution, an effect that can be used to constrain the nature of dark energy with next generation surveys.
      • Not many slashdot readers are (unfortunately) as an observant and careful reader as you are. People tend to swallow what is dangled in front of them and to take it as a "hard" fact. I'm just adding my 2 cents to make them think a bit deeper (if at all).

        Yeah, this could be proven to be utterly wrong in 5 years; or it could be used as a benchmark study for the cosmological study of large scale structure. The community will decide that sooner or later.
    • I feel that this quote is appropriate, as I believe this type of simulation possibly cannot contain every essential physics that governs the evolution of the Universe. Some oversimplification must be present and some tweaks (e.g. dark matter) may go into the modeling to match whatever we see it today.

      Yes, but as a source of desktop backgrounds (ignoring the impending /. effect) it can't be beaten

    • Re: Caveat -- cosmology not far from understood (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:15AM (#12992582)


      > > "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are -- if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- R.P. Feynman

      > I feel that this quote is appropriate, as I believe this type of simulation possibly cannot contain every essential physics that governs the evolution of the Universe. Some oversimplification must be present and some tweaks (e.g. dark matter) may go into the modeling to match whatever we see it today.

      Yes, and figuring out why your model doesn't reproduce what you see is where the potential for real discoveries lies.

    • That's a great quote, and yes, Astronomy/Cosmology aren't really 'experimental' sciences in the true sense of the word. But there are observations that can be made to attempt to validate/invalidate the model. It's difficult, because we are stuck with the few photons that happen to make it to vicinity of our planet. Regardless, such observations can still be powerful enough to dethrone one model [wikipedia.org] of the universe and suggest another [wikipedia.org]

      The best we can eventually hope for is a comsological model that agrees wit

  • evidence (Score:5, Interesting)

    by resistfascism ( 234196 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:13AM (#12992565)
    Besides the argument that stars orbiting around the fringes of galaxies appear to be moving too fast to stay in orbit without extra mass, what other observable evidence of dark matter is there?

    • Re:evidence (Score:5, Informative)

      by Use Psychology ( 873643 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:17AM (#12992589)
      a good one is gravitational lensing by massive clusters -- a lens analysis of all the arcs seen in, for example, a cluster, can be used to infer the mass of the cluster, and hence see that it is inconsistent with the mass of all the luminous matter. i.e. dark matter

      • Re:evidence (Score:5, Informative)

        by gilzreid ( 95884 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @07:06AM (#12992750) Homepage
        Also, by measuring the expansion rate of the universe over a very long time (ie. billions of years), and making observations of the Cosmic Microwave Backgound (CMB, the left over radiation from around 300000 years after the Big Bang) we can calculate the amount of matter it must contain. Then from models of the Big Bang and the CMB observations we can also find the amount of 'normal' matter (ie atoms), which comes to about 4% of the so called 'critical density', which is the amount of matter/energy required to have the universe be spatially flat (expands forever but tends toward zero expansion rate as time goes to infinity)

        Since the amount of matter is measured to be around 25% this means dark matter must be around 20% of the critical density.

        Incidentally, this also means that 75% of the energy/matter in the universe is 'dark energy', since the cosmic microwave background indicates the universe is almost exactly flat.

        However, the importance of each constituent changes over time because essentially the dark energy is proportional to the size of the universe and when it was much smaller the matter was more concentrated so it had a far greater influence. Therefore for studies of the early evolution of the universe the dark energy is unimportant, and since dark matter is most of the total matter the models can just use dark matter alone. At present, however, the dark energy appears to be causing an acceleration of the expansion rate, which is seen using distant supernovae. This is how the 75% figure is worked out.

        NB: Nobody can explain what the dark matter or dark energy is right now! This is by far the most important problem in Cosmology, and there are many , many competing theories.

    • Re:evidence (Score:3, Interesting)

      by imsabbel ( 611519 )
      There is for example the anisotropy of the background radiation. Without those wimps self-gravitating while the interacting matter was still in equlibrium, there would have been no chance of the universe "clumping together" that quick.

      Also, recently some structures of the higher energy band of the background radiation are suspected to be the result of the decay-series of those weakly interacting particles, as predicted by the theory of supersymetry.
      http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405235 [arxiv.org] (sorry for the plug
    • A different question would be - why do we need evidence for dark matter?

      It is surely more absurd to insist that all the matter in the universe interacts by the electromagnetic force, than to suggest that a sizable proportion does not.

    • Re:evidence (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @10:06AM (#12993891)
      "Besides the argument that stars orbiting around the fringes of galaxies appear to be moving too fast to stay in orbit without extra mass, what other observable evidence of dark matter is there?"

      I looked into that whole thing. Most of the people who make that claim refer to Keplers laws of motion for orbiting bodies. If you assume the stars orbit a heavy core and don't interact with each other you get a galactic rotation curve that tapers off with radius. Real measured curves are nearly flat, so they conclude some "dark matter" that has some really unintuitive properties (see below). My own calculations of a rotation curve for a uniform flat disk of stars using interactions between all stars shows velocity increasing roughly linearly all the way out, and increasing even faster toward the edge. I don't think we should be suprised that observation lies somewhere between these two models. My distribution of stars is not accurate.

      Stupid properties of dark matter: The interaction with regular matter must be asymetric. Why? Because they model it as a sphere of dark matter enclosing a disk shaped galaxy to get the expected rotation curve. If dark matter interacted with itself and visible matter in the same way visible matter interacts with itself, they should have the same distribution. I think they just observed that a big sphere of stuff would make their flawed model match reality and said "oh there must be this goofy thing here". Remember, there are NO direct observations of dark matter (or energy).

      The tragedy of Einstein is that he convinced physicists that strange nonintuitive things are a part of the universe. This encourages the promotion of nifty off-the-wall sounding theories that make headlines to get funding.

      I've said it here before: The only dark matter is between the astrophisicists ears.

      • Re:evidence (Score:4, Insightful)

        by lgw ( 121541 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @12:52PM (#12995237) Journal
        Stupid properties of dark matter: The interaction with regular matter must be asymetric. Why? Because they model it as a sphere of dark matter enclosing a disk shaped galaxy to get the expected rotation curve. If dark matter interacted with itself and visible matter in the same way visible matter interacts with itself, they should have the same distribution. I think they just observed that a big sphere of stuff would make their flawed model match reality and said "oh there must be this goofy thing here". Remember, there are NO direct observations of dark matter (or energy).

        This argument has several flaws. There is direct evidence for dark matter in the cosmic microwave background data, which is why dark matter is now the preferred theory for explaining galactic rotation rates.

        It's not actually the theory that all of the "normal matter" in our galaxy is visible in a disk, and all of the "dark matter" is distributed in a sphere - a significant percentage of the dark matter in our galaxy is thought to be normal matter that just didn't clump enough to form (many) stars - that is, disperse hydrogen gas.

        For the remaining "exotic dark matter", the one thing we know about it (from the CMB data) is that it interacts weakly with normal matter. There's no reason to assume that whatever caused most "normal" matter to clump and eventually become stars would cause "exotic" matter to have a similar distribution. A disk makes sense for matter that tends to form clumps as a result of collisions, and a sphere makes perfect sense for matter that doesn't. It's not all that unintuitive or surprising, given the data now in hand.

  • Big bang (Score:4, Funny)

    by Xoknit ( 181837 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:14AM (#12992569)
    After the images of the simulation were released, a second big bang was reported by the scientists of the project, originating from the server room.

    Apparently all the packets on the internet condensed in one of their servers and created a second universe, from now on to be referred to as "cyberspace".

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:15AM (#12992581)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It's nice to see where the £millions that get pumped into my uni's physics department actually goes. Now we have a pretty screensaver for all their effort.

  • Mirror to full text (Score:2, Informative)

    by AngryScot ( 795131 )
    Full Text [dundee.ac.uk] Just incase

  • About those authors... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:22AM (#12992603)


    > Authors: Volker Springel (1), Simon D. M. White (1), Adrian Jenkins (2), Carlos S. Frenk (2), Naoki Yoshida (3), Liang Gao (1), Julio Navarro (4), Robert Thacker (5), Darren Croton (1), John Helly (2), John A. Peacock (6), Shaun Cole (2), Peter Thomas (7), Hugh Couchman (5), August Evrard (8), Joerg Colberg (9), Frazer Pearce (10) ((1) MPA, (2) Durham, (3) Nagoya, (4) UVic, (5) McMaster, (6) Edinburgh, (7) Sussex, (8) Michigan, (9) Pittsburgh, (10) Nottingham)

    Now you know why "et al." is one of the most important concepts in the natural sciences.

  • I support basic research and modelling, but this seems all too artificial to have any useful predictive benefits. It's like trying to draw Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi" with only a green crayon, it might look something like what you're trying to simulate, but in all essential aspects it's completely and obviously fake. If they lack the computing power, why aren't they waiting a few years when they can afford to improve upon their resolution, produce something useful?

    Sorry, but this reminds m
    • You said that early climate change models were incredibly unhelpful. This was ultimately the first step in creating a helpful one. Why can't the same apply to this universe simulation?
    • Inevitably, I will be modded down for having a negative view.

      What, with the cynical slashdot crowd?

    • Re:Seems like a waste of time (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Where you might be missing something is in the improvements of modelling itself. I know the arguments a bit circular, but every time we build
      a new model, with better clustering, better arithmetic, better data mapping, we get an improvement in modelling technology and its applications. Very little separates 90% of the software in this example from the modelling used for DNA modelling in medical sciences or the massive tensor arrays used for climate modelling.

      I agree many theoretical physics stuff seems pie
    • (paraphrase) "Celestial Navigation works on the principle that the Earth is the center of the universe. The assumption is wrong, but the navigation works. A flawed model can still produce useful results."

      All models are oversimplifications. Even our models of molecules pretend that atoms are solid spheres... This doesn't mean that the models are useless.

      That said, only time will tell how useful this model is.
    • It's like trying to draw Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi" with only a green crayon, it might look something like what you're trying to simulate, but in all essential aspects it's completely and obviously fake.

      Rather than disagree with your analogy, let's add a time-condition. It's like finding a drawing of Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi", done in green crayon that was executed on a cave wall sometime in the paleolithic. Now that's impressive. Our scientific cosmology is still in

    • The fact is, this generates pretty pictures, maybe a nice paper in some backwater of journal land.

      Well, if you considert "Nature" a backwater journal, then i dont know.... where should i publish? This paper went through a peer-review process, so its not just pretty pictures.
      Although, I am partial to agree that simualtions are approximations, how long should we wait then before we attain "suitable" computing power? Everything starts somewhere.

    • Re:Seems like a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mt._Honkey ( 514673 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @09:09AM (#12993374)
      The fact is, this generates pretty pictures, maybe a nice paper in some backwater of journal land, and not much else beyond froth.
      Some backwater journal like Nature [nature.com]?

      I've done some work in the past couple of years on simulations of galaxy collisions, and can speak a little on the value of this type of research.

      Large-scale structure simulations such as this one do have specific uses. They do not claim to reproduce the current universe in all its complexity, but can be used to test theories on its composition. When doing simulations like these, one makes certain assumptions in order to test them. They seem to have assumed that dark matter is made of non-relativistic (cold) particles that only interact gravitationally. They also would have had to assume an initial distribution of dark matter that has small density fluctuations. So by comparing the results of this simulation with observations of the real universe, one can get an idea of how accurate our theories of dark matter behavior and initial conditions are.

      A common theory that is often assumed to be true is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) cosmology, where all dark matter is assumed to be relatively heavy particles that are moving much more slowly than the speed of light. When you do this kind of simulation, a large number of dwarf galaxies are created, several times more than are observed in the real universe. This is a strong indication that the CDM assumption is flawed, that there is at least small portion of the dark matter that is "hot", or relativistic, as if there were a large number of high energy neutrinos, or some similar particle.
    • The sciences are evolutionary. We need the early, shitty models to direct and focus ensuing research and modeling. In the beginning of the research cycle for every branch, all of it amounts to guesstimated shots in the dark. Fine tuning then comes from that, then more spohisticated models, etc.

      Re: just because we can. That's the greatest and best reason to do anything.

      I think you make a salient point though, in that the publication of such preliminary research tends to be injurious to the general public..

  • Typical (Score:5, Funny)

    by CleverNickedName ( 644160 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:27AM (#12992620) Journal
    The Virgo Consortium recently completed its massive "Millennium Simulation", tracing the universe's evolution from its early origins to present day. To simplify the computations, they considered only dark matter...

    Reminds me of a joke:
    A rich oil-baron hires a veterinarian, a statistician and a physicist to develop a method for predicting the outcome of a horse race. The three scientists disappear for a week and each returns with a different method; The vet states "I have studied the form, health and blood-lines of all the horses for the next race and can confidently say that number 7 is the best of the lot. Whether he wins on the day, is another question". The Statistician boasts "I have studied the race histories of all the horses in the next race and all the races ran on this track and can definitely say that horse number 3 has a 85% chance of coming in the top 3". The physicist then strides up to the baron and boldly proclaims "I have developed a way to predict the outcome of any race with 100% accuracy! First, one assumes that the horses are perfectly spherical and moving through a vacuum...".

    • Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by syntaxglitch ( 889367 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @07:57AM (#12992917)
      Bah.

      I generally find that joke is found to be funny in direct proportion to the audience's scientific illiteracy. "Har har, look at those silly scientists, spouting their nonsense. I'll just sit here and laugh at them while I enjoy all the lovely modern technology their work has made possible."

      While mildly amusing, it betrays a deep failure of understanding the value of analytical simplification. Just because something sounds silly to the uninformed does not mean it has no value.

      As pitiful as the current public understanding of science is (as evidenced by such things as the rampant belief in nonsense like 'creationism'), it'd be nice if the problem not further exacerbated.

      • Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @09:03AM (#12993322) Homepage Journal
        Actually, I think only a scientist would find that joke funny. A nonscientist is just going to give you dumb stares.

        It's an exaggeration for comic effect. Every good scientist recognizes in it some silly oversimplification he or she has made at some point in the past, because that's the way science gets done. The nonscientist doesn't get it precisely because he doesn't know how science gets done.

        Public misunderstanding of science has little to do with the jokes of scientists poking fun at themselves. In fact, one of the best ways to convince the general public that science is simply wrong is to be humorless about it. Lighten up.

  • Who is to say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by seti ( 74097 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:35AM (#12992647) Journal
    That this whole universe as we see it is not an experiment in somebody's supercomputer?
    • I presume you know that this idea of a super-supercomputer simulating the entire universe including all the sentient beings who ever lived and will live is one of the central theme's of the book The Physics of Immortality : Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead by Frank Tipler...
    • That this whole universe as we see it is not an experiment in somebody's supercomputer.

      If I had a dollar for every stoned college kid that thought of that and exclaimed, "Whoa, dude," I'd have enough money to buy a supercomputer capable of simulating an entire universe of stoned college kids wondering whether they were in a computer simulation and exclaiming, "Whoa, dude."

  • TORRENTS needed! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:36AM (#12992650) Homepage
    I managed to download one of the videos the instant the story appeared but we desperately need someone to put torrents for them. The site was pretty well dead by the time there were even TWO Slashdot posts.

    The video I got was pretty impressive at 1024 full screen mode. I haven't been able to get the other one.

    -
  • ...An older [slashdot.org] Slashdot Post.

  • title? (Score:2)

    by kv9 ( 697238 )
    SCUMS? yeah, like im gonna trust them. *rolls eyes*

  • 100Gyr (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frans Faase ( 648933 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:41AM (#12992668) Homepage
    Why did they stop at 13.6Gyr? Why not run this simulation into the future? Looking at the pictures, it doens't look like a stable situation has been reached yet.
    • Well.
      Its because they absolutle exacly know what is going to happen, simply because of the choice of starting parameters of their simulation.

      But as their is no reality to compare with (for those future), there is no scientific value to it.

  • Suspicious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arthur B. ( 806360 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:43AM (#12992674)
    I cannot access the article at this moment but I am very suspicious of how accurate / scientific this simulation is. It surely is an amazing artistic work but heck, we don't even know the mass density of the universe (related to its curvature). Yet that sounds like a required data to make a simulation. This simulation should be ruled by the equations of general relativity which is still drafty. Most equations lead to cahotic behavior... we have trouble simulating three bodies because of the unstability of the system...

    • Re:Suspicious (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      Well, just as early cartographic maps of the earth were pretty shitty by today's standards, we have to start somewhere.

      If this simulation is useful in any way for building new theories that are in turn useful for predicting other things, then it isn't a loss.

      Even if the simulation is complete bunk, as long as it is studied and reasons are articulated why it is complete bunk, then it wasn't a loss then either, we then know how not to do such a simulation in the future.

    • Re:Suspicious (Score:2, Insightful)

      by syntaxglitch ( 889367 )
      I, on the other hand, am very suspicious of how knowledgeable you are about physics.

      While the simulation in question makes huge sweeping simplifications (including the amusing--if reasonable--omission of the relatively insignificant contribution of visible matter), it seems to be based on cosmological physics that have been thoroughly tested and produce reliable predictions. The more speculative stuff doesn't really even enter into it.

      Besides, the purpose of a simulation like this isn't to be accurate
  • ...of the server serving the pictures seems to have gone up in blazing fire. Anyone has a mirror?
  • Server timing out.

    Suggest people who want to see the pretty pictures use the Mirrordot mirror link at

    http://mirrordot.org/stories/bdfc0ad7cef604a1af6b9 8722b0f530f/index.html [mirrordot.org]

  • So, to quickly simulate everything that exists... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:47AM (#12992687) Homepage
    ...they left out everything that is actually known to exist.

    Yay!

  • But they can't run it into the future... (Score:3, Funny)

    by haakondahl ( 893488 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @06:56AM (#12992712)
    Because then the machine would have to simulate itself on earth, and could cause the program to crash. Think of the simulated /.ers!
  • Let the Douglas Adams, and ruling order of mice, posts begin.
  • http://maps.google.com/maps?q=48%C2%B015.662'N+11% C2%B040.282'E&spn=0.006686,0.004974&t=k&hl=en [google.com] If we can't get them pretty pictures of the universe we can at least have a look at where they are.

  • And the Answer is (Score:4, Funny)

    by dankasfuk ( 885483 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @07:13AM (#12992769)
    Forty-two.

  • Ok, Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mritunjai ( 518932 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @07:15AM (#12992778) Homepage
    I'm sleep deprieved, but have a fundamental question... the article said they only simulated 'dark matter' and produced 'breath-taking images'!!

    Breath-taking images of *DARK MATTER* ??? WTF
  • We have Slashdotted the Universe.

  • Torrents (Score:2, Informative)

    by LordAlbert ( 884220 )
    made a torrent of the first 1024 version http://homepage.hispeed.ch/stanislaw/millennium_si m_1024x768.torrent [hispeed.ch]

    happy downloading

  • From TFA: By zooming in on a massive cluster of galaxies, the movie highlights the morphology of the structure on different scales, and the large dynamic range of the simulation (10^5 per dimension in 3D).

    Now I understand that this resolution means 10^15 voxels ((10^5)^3) but that only equates to a linear resolution of 1mm in a 10m wide universe. Impressive it may be, but it's a long way short of the real thing.

  • To simplify the computations, they considered only dark matter which composes most of the universe.

    In other words, they left out the entire observable universe. Not only does that simplify the calculations, it makes it a little difficult to truly authenticate the results. :)

  • To simplify the computations, they considered only dark matter which composes most of the universe

    no wonder those breathtaking images remain invisible...

  • It'd be nice to have a few of these as 1028x768 jpegs to be used as wallpaper. If *you* beginning-of the-universe-scientists are listening!
  • some of the most breathtaking images of the universe never seen

    Thought I'd beat someone to it.

  • Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Grendel Drago ( 41496 ) on Wednesday July 06, 2005 @09:58AM (#12993832) Homepage
    Does anyone have an idea what the copyright on these images is? That is, how difficult will it be for me to go to my local Kinko's or Staples and have them make me a nice A0 poster out of one of these pictures?

    --grendel drago

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close