Ok, I see a lot of confusion in here and such... This is something I'm "into" though I'm not a physicist. I read a lot of physics and astronomy journals.
"Black hole" is a popular term that represents many things relating to high density objects. Generally speaking a star collapses and creates a very dense body that light cannot escape from and we, the general public consider that to be a black hole. This is not what this article is about. That phenomenon still exists, and has at least been peripherally observed.
The problem is, for a long time it's been predicted that the density of this object would be so high that at the center time and space would collapse into a single point. This point is what we all know as "The singularity" The singularity is what causes the problem. If such a thing exists then once matter enters it, it can never escape, not even information about that matter.
Along comes quantum physics. In quantum physics the univers is "Time neutral" meaning that if you were to watch an interaction forwards or backwards on a VCR for example... it would make sense. He's falling into the the object at X rate.... then reverse time... he is traveling away from object at X rate... If it's a singularity however, when you reverse time, the object cannot leave. This breaks quantum mechanics.
Because of this alone, physicists pretty much already knew singularities probably were real. OR there's something very wrong with Quantum mechanics.
What she's proven here is that everything else we know about blackholes is still ok. But the singularity itself never forms. The mass of the object evaporates away too fast to form it. This makes sense though... it's long been know that gravity slows time. The more gravity, the slower time moves. Because of that alone, you'd never reach the center of a blackhole. If facing "up" as you fell into one (providing you survived) you'd watch time end behind you.
So, blackholes as you thought they were, still exist. A particular facet of them, does not. Also, this paper hasn't even been peer reviewed yet. Even if she's wrong, or I'm misunderstanding her findings, there is still something wrong with the idea of a singularity. It will likely get dis-proven in the near future anyway.
So, from the video you can see it clearly bend around the volume cutouts. Then even mentions that. I suspect it was engineered to survive flexing in that direction... and then later they moved/changed where the volume cutouts would be. If those buttons were on top, this wouldn't be a problem.
It should be perfectly fine for the average person protecting their credit card details from thieves and their porn from their partners. People who go to these lengths would surely be either: Really determined for some reason (in which case they'd probably social engineer it out of you or something) People who'd just cut your finger off The police (at which point they've already obtained your phone and fingerprint) The NSA (who probably already have a backdoor) Either way, it's more secure than your typical 4 digit PIN or pattern unlock.
If you need more than that, you'd probably use some tedious-to-type ultra secure battery horse staple thing anyway.
No, it wont even protect you from your spouse. All you need is a photocopy of the owners thumb. Your thumb print is conveniently all over the phone. I've seen these cracked by placing a clear piece of plastic over the screen... stenciling the print, put the clear plastic on a copier, xerox... hold copy to phone. Viola. Finger print recognition is banned where I work for a reason.
Activision-Blizzard recently bought itself independent. Can they really afford to write off the couple-million-and-change Titan undoubtedly cost to make?
That's the "Loss aversion" or "sunk cost" fallacy. In any financial transaction your only questions should be: How much will this cost me to do/complete? How much will it make me when I'm done?
The entire act of "gambling" is based on people thinking about what they've lost rather than what they could gain. The fact of the matter is, what they have lost is irrelevant. Their future actions are what count and if they continue they'll just lose even more money.
Tax evasions are possible with the so called "Fair Tax" or "Sales Tax" as you call it. Rich people may find it much cheaper to buy expensive items overseas or in Canada or Mexico and ship them to the USA.
Ok, I randomly picked you to reply to out of all the people that seemed to want to focus on that one part of my statement. Yes, tax evasions always possible. People don't declare their yard sales after all. But your suggestion of buying things over-seas? No, that's not as easy as it sounds. You can't just buy something overseas and not have the US government find out. It's possible in other countries, but in the US you cannot get a credit card that wont declare your purchases to the feds. Prepaid cards don't work overseas, it's illegal as part of the patriot act. Trust me, I've tried.
The feds control every non-cash financial transaction you make. All of them. You cannot hide from their oversight. Will they miss cash sales of things on the street? Yes... so tax evasion is technically feasible. But the IRS would no longer be sending out billions in fake refunds. In fact, the entire IRS would be dead and gone.
And lastly... Rich people will always get ahead. There's no way to stop it so stop getting bent out of shape. At least with a use tax they'd pay a hell of a lot more than they do now.
Technically, if we're going to bother considering what the U.S. Constitution has to say on the matter, a sales tax is not authorized as it is not a tariff, excise tax, or income tax - the only three taxes currently authorized.
As an aside, I find it interesting that parent comment gets voted up while A.C. comment directly above it gets voted down into oblivion. I guess the current crop of slashdot mods prefers unconstitutional sales tax to world peace.
Actually, based on the comments above mine I'm kind of surprised I didn't get modded troll as well. But this wouldn't be the first time I got a +5 insightful comments with hundreds of replies that within hours turned into a troll comment. Keep in mind, on slashdot Troll = I disagree;-) and often people don't disagree until your comment rises due to up-modding.
No more tax returns. Only tax based on use (i.e. Sales Tax) Problem solved in one fell swoop. Tax evasions now impossible and you encourage people to invest rather than spend. Oh wait, that's right, we have an entire industry run by blood sucking vampires that need the current system to remain as confusing as possible.
So, what you're saying is... you didn't read the original reviews, the article or even the summary? The quotes are pretty clear.
On the Galaxy:
It’s still too big for a smartphone After testing it over the past week and a half, the awkwardness that came with carrying such a large, “notice me” phone outweighed the benefits of it, for me.
– Lauren Goode
Same person on the iPhone6:
Maybe I’m getting old, and my eyes are getting worse. Or maybe I’m stuck in Apple’s reality-distortion field (help). But something strange happened this week. I started to like a phablet.
– Lauren Goode
Translation: Your new feature sux because it's not Apple! Oh... Apple did it to? Yay! I like it now!
Eh I guess you can sue anyone for anything in 'merica
Is losing a $350,000 job offer something you consider trivial? The scientist and his lawyer suspect foul play by anonymous person(s) who allegedly defamed him by posting ad hominem attacks in their pubpeer comments and then distributed those comment pages to both universities associated with him.
Any criticism of his work should be valid and fact based and that should be enforced by the site's moderators. Still, anonymity is important when criticizing someone and they should not use this as an excuse to force critics to reveal their identities.
Go look at the images. He's guilty of what the anon commenters accused him. It's obvious at its face without any further detective work needed. On top of that, look at the number of papers he's submitted over his career. He'd have had to been publishing at least one paper every month for 30 years! This guys a fraud and about to finish some in-depth research into the Streisand effect.
You didn't watch the video... clearly. He refutes all of your rather mundane arguments with ease. Everything you said, without a doubt is fatalism. You say you're accepting reality. You're not. You're accepting things as they are now, and refusing to believe things could change.
Death is not inevitable. It's just an, as of yet, unsolved problem. If I were to tell you a meteor was heading towards earth, and was scheduled to hit us, killing everyone alive in 100yrs, would you say "Well, we've never stopped a meteor before, we'd better just accept it!"?? Of course not... but that's what we're saying. In 100yrs everyone alive today WILL be killed... not by a meteor, but by aging. For a hell of a lot less money than it would take to stop a celestial object, we could stop aging. So lets stop burring our heads in the sand and take care o fit. The problem of aging will be solved, and not too far off in the future. Likely it will be too late for us, but not for our children or our grandchildren. So lets do it.
Conservative deniers are going to have a field day with this: "How can we trust scientists on evolution and global warming when the Big Bang turned out to be nothing more than God's dirty windshield!".
Apparently Liberals area already all over it. You can't fix stupid.
You can do all of that without regulating the traffic.
Force the parent company into not creating video content. Done. Telephone companies are already prevented from creating video content due to the 1996 telecommunications act. The Telcos still hate Netflix and want to shape their netflix traffic in return. Yet they have no vested interest in hurting Netflixes product. So why are they mad? Is it possible because Netflix really is behaving badly?
I love this argument. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about yet you tell "Common carrier fixes everything!" When it's not even relevant to this debate at all.
Please follow the links and read about the communications act of 1934 and the changes to it made in 1996. It's about Phone service. Even the telcos are not regulated in regard to their ISP services. Only the pots lines are, and most ISPs are trying to talk customers into IP phones to get around those laws as well.
So how are they going to finagle fees from us for this? Decoders?
It is scandalous that we have to pay through the nose just for the right to be spied on....
Taxes.
People think it's bad that corporations control the internet. I'm sure the NSA loves that particular conspiracy theory because what do you think the alternative to corporations is?
This was going to be my comment. nvidia flubbed weeks ago, this article adds absolutely nothing to the story.
That's assuming it was a story to begin with, which it's not. It's not even about a product... there's no product yet! It's about an agreement between to companies two possibly make something at some future date. Why would anyone other than a hedgefund manager care about this?
Ironically, you CAN put metal in a microwave. Maybe a lot of you are not old enough to remember when Microwaves first became popular in the early 80s but at the time there were warnings all over the news about the horrors of putting metal in a microwave. It will catch fire! Your microwave will explode! etc... etc...
Fast forward to a few years ago, the Mythbusters did a show where they did it. And, to my amazement, nothing happened. Metal is entirely safe to put in a microwave, though you should be aware that it will get surprisingly hot so don't touch it. This was a revelation akin to finding out there was no Santa for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I see a lot of confusion in here and such... This is something I'm "into" though I'm not a physicist. I read a lot of physics and astronomy journals.
"Black hole" is a popular term that represents many things relating to high density objects. Generally speaking a star collapses and creates a very dense body that light cannot escape from and we, the general public consider that to be a black hole. This is not what this article is about. That phenomenon still exists, and has at least been peripherally observed.
The problem is, for a long time it's been predicted that the density of this object would be so high that at the center time and space would collapse into a single point. This point is what we all know as "The singularity" The singularity is what causes the problem. If such a thing exists then once matter enters it, it can never escape, not even information about that matter.
Along comes quantum physics. In quantum physics the univers is "Time neutral" meaning that if you were to watch an interaction forwards or backwards on a VCR for example... it would make sense. He's falling into the the object at X rate.... then reverse time... he is traveling away from object at X rate... If it's a singularity however, when you reverse time, the object cannot leave. This breaks quantum mechanics.
Because of this alone, physicists pretty much already knew singularities probably were real. OR there's something very wrong with Quantum mechanics.
What she's proven here is that everything else we know about blackholes is still ok. But the singularity itself never forms. The mass of the object evaporates away too fast to form it. This makes sense though... it's long been know that gravity slows time. The more gravity, the slower time moves. Because of that alone, you'd never reach the center of a blackhole. If facing "up" as you fell into one (providing you survived) you'd watch time end behind you.
So, blackholes as you thought they were, still exist. A particular facet of them, does not. Also, this paper hasn't even been peer reviewed yet. Even if she's wrong, or I'm misunderstanding her findings, there is still something wrong with the idea of a singularity. It will likely get dis-proven in the near future anyway.
Stop using the word "Troll" if you don't know what it means. And before you ask, go look it up on Wikipedia. There's even a book about it on amazon.
Great plan. Now all they need is 10 consecutive years of oil prices above $200/barrel to finance the enterprise.
Or... stop invading neighboring countries. One or the other.
um... that's not a robot, its a balloon stretched over a turkey baster.
So, from the video you can see it clearly bend around the volume cutouts. Then even mentions that. I suspect it was engineered to survive flexing in that direction... and then later they moved/changed where the volume cutouts would be. If those buttons were on top, this wouldn't be a problem.
Form over function is always a loser.
It should be perfectly fine for the average person protecting their credit card details from thieves and their porn from their partners.
People who go to these lengths would surely be either:
Really determined for some reason (in which case they'd probably social engineer it out of you or something)
People who'd just cut your finger off
The police (at which point they've already obtained your phone and fingerprint)
The NSA (who probably already have a backdoor)
Either way, it's more secure than your typical 4 digit PIN or pattern unlock.
If you need more than that, you'd probably use some tedious-to-type ultra secure battery horse staple thing anyway.
No, it wont even protect you from your spouse.
All you need is a photocopy of the owners thumb.
Your thumb print is conveniently all over the phone.
I've seen these cracked by placing a clear piece of plastic over the screen... stenciling the print, put the clear plastic on a copier, xerox... hold copy to phone. Viola. Finger print recognition is banned where I work for a reason.
Activision-Blizzard recently bought itself independent. Can they really afford to write off the couple-million-and-change Titan undoubtedly cost to make?
That's the "Loss aversion" or "sunk cost" fallacy.
In any financial transaction your only questions should be:
How much will this cost me to do/complete?
How much will it make me when I'm done?
The entire act of "gambling" is based on people thinking about what they've lost rather than what they could gain. The fact of the matter is, what they have lost is irrelevant. Their future actions are what count and if they continue they'll just lose even more money.
Tax evasions are possible with the so called "Fair Tax" or "Sales Tax" as you call it. Rich people may find it much cheaper to buy expensive items overseas or in Canada or Mexico and ship them to the USA.
Ok, I randomly picked you to reply to out of all the people that seemed to want to focus on that one part of my statement. Yes, tax evasions always possible. People don't declare their yard sales after all. But your suggestion of buying things over-seas? No, that's not as easy as it sounds. You can't just buy something overseas and not have the US government find out. It's possible in other countries, but in the US you cannot get a credit card that wont declare your purchases to the feds. Prepaid cards don't work overseas, it's illegal as part of the patriot act. Trust me, I've tried.
The feds control every non-cash financial transaction you make. All of them. You cannot hide from their oversight. Will they miss cash sales of things on the street? Yes... so tax evasion is technically feasible. But the IRS would no longer be sending out billions in fake refunds. In fact, the entire IRS would be dead and gone.
And lastly... Rich people will always get ahead. There's no way to stop it so stop getting bent out of shape. At least with a use tax they'd pay a hell of a lot more than they do now.
Technically, if we're going to bother considering what the U.S. Constitution has to say on the matter, a sales tax is not authorized as it is not a tariff, excise tax, or income tax - the only three taxes currently authorized.
As an aside, I find it interesting that parent comment gets voted up while A.C. comment directly above it gets voted down into oblivion. I guess the current crop of slashdot mods prefers unconstitutional sales tax to world peace.
Actually, based on the comments above mine I'm kind of surprised I didn't get modded troll as well. But this wouldn't be the first time I got a +5 insightful comments with hundreds of replies that within hours turned into a troll comment. Keep in mind, on slashdot Troll = I disagree ;-) and often people don't disagree until your comment rises due to up-modding.
End income tax.
No more tax returns. Only tax based on use (i.e. Sales Tax) Problem solved in one fell swoop.
Tax evasions now impossible and you encourage people to invest rather than spend.
Oh wait, that's right, we have an entire industry run by blood sucking vampires that need the current system to remain as confusing as possible.
Another one? Isn't this like the 158th "Site that will teach you to code good enough to get a job?"
So, what you're saying is... you didn't read the original reviews, the article or even the summary? The quotes are pretty clear.
On the Galaxy:
It’s still too big for a smartphone After testing it over the past week and a half, the awkwardness that came with carrying such a large, “notice me” phone outweighed the benefits of it, for me.
– Lauren Goode
Same person on the iPhone6:
Maybe I’m getting old, and my eyes are getting worse. Or maybe I’m stuck in Apple’s reality-distortion field (help). But something strange happened this week. I started to like a phablet.
– Lauren Goode
Translation: Your new feature sux because it's not Apple! Oh... Apple did it to? Yay! I like it now!
The press is biased towards Apple? You don't say...
Go look at the images. He's guilty of what the anon commenters accused him.
LOL, now you're getting sued, too.
Sounds great. Given that I know his salary, my counter suit should be fairly lucrative if he can ever find employment again.
Is losing a $350,000 job offer something you consider trivial? The scientist and his lawyer suspect foul play by anonymous person(s) who allegedly defamed him by posting ad hominem attacks in their pubpeer comments and then distributed those comment pages to both universities associated with him.
Any criticism of his work should be valid and fact based and that should be enforced by the site's moderators. Still, anonymity is important when criticizing someone and they should not use this as an excuse to force critics to reveal their identities.
Go look at the images. He's guilty of what the anon commenters accused him. It's obvious at its face without any further detective work needed. On top of that, look at the number of papers he's submitted over his career. He'd have had to been publishing at least one paper every month for 30 years! This guys a fraud and about to finish some in-depth research into the Streisand effect.
True, but such lawsuits also might give people reason to not do such things again.
Do what again? This guy really was faking his research, look at the images. He's trying to sue the people that called him on it, into silence.
You didn't watch the video... clearly. He refutes all of your rather mundane arguments with ease. Everything you said, without a doubt is fatalism. You say you're accepting reality. You're not. You're accepting things as they are now, and refusing to believe things could change.
Death is not inevitable. It's just an, as of yet, unsolved problem. If I were to tell you a meteor was heading towards earth, and was scheduled to hit us, killing everyone alive in 100yrs, would you say "Well, we've never stopped a meteor before, we'd better just accept it!"?? Of course not... but that's what we're saying. In 100yrs everyone alive today WILL be killed... not by a meteor, but by aging. For a hell of a lot less money than it would take to stop a celestial object, we could stop aging. So lets stop burring our heads in the sand and take care o fit. The problem of aging will be solved, and not too far off in the future. Likely it will be too late for us, but not for our children or our grandchildren. So lets do it.
Who goes to jail? Everyone who signed the NDA?
Edward Snowden. He's also responsible for all future acts of Terrorism, wars, and the color Beige.
Conservative deniers are going to have a field day with this: "How can we trust scientists on evolution and global warming when the Big Bang turned out to be nothing more than God's dirty windshield!".
Apparently Liberals area already all over it. You can't fix stupid.
I hate fatalism. My goal is to live forever. I'll go out kicking and screaming every bionic body part I can get.
Watch this: https://www.ted.com/talks/aubr...
You can all die if you want, leave me out of it.
You can do all of that without regulating the traffic.
Force the parent company into not creating video content. Done. Telephone companies are already prevented from creating video content due to the 1996 telecommunications act. The Telcos still hate Netflix and want to shape their netflix traffic in return. Yet they have no vested interest in hurting Netflixes product. So why are they mad? Is it possible because Netflix really is behaving badly?
I love this argument. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about yet you tell "Common carrier fixes everything!" When it's not even relevant to this debate at all.
Read about Common Carriers and telecommunications here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
(if you trust Wikipedia)
Please follow the links and read about the communications act of 1934 and the changes to it made in 1996. It's about Phone service. Even the telcos are not regulated in regard to their ISP services. Only the pots lines are, and most ISPs are trying to talk customers into IP phones to get around those laws as well.
So how are they going to finagle fees from us for this? Decoders?
It is scandalous that we have to pay through the nose just for the right to be spied on ....
Taxes.
People think it's bad that corporations control the internet. I'm sure the NSA loves that particular conspiracy theory because what do you think the alternative to corporations is?
This was going to be my comment. nvidia flubbed weeks ago, this article adds absolutely nothing to the story.
That's assuming it was a story to begin with, which it's not. It's not even about a product... there's no product yet! It's about an agreement between to companies two possibly make something at some future date. Why would anyone other than a hedgefund manager care about this?
Ironically, you CAN put metal in a microwave. Maybe a lot of you are not old enough to remember when Microwaves first became popular in the early 80s but at the time there were warnings all over the news about the horrors of putting metal in a microwave. It will catch fire! Your microwave will explode! etc... etc...
Fast forward to a few years ago, the Mythbusters did a show where they did it. And, to my amazement, nothing happened. Metal is entirely safe to put in a microwave, though you should be aware that it will get surprisingly hot so don't touch it. This was a revelation akin to finding out there was no Santa for me.