Re:Anyone rember *these* Dem gems from days past?
on
2005 Foot In Mouth Awards
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation....And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.
That's from John Kerry.
So put a fucking sock in the "Bush lied" crap.
Ok, so maybe Bush did believe there were WMDs.
I don't think I've heard anyone saying Saddam was a nice guy or anything, it's pretty much agreed in all parts of the civilized world, no matter what your political leanings, he was a grade A asshole (yes, I know the US pandered to him in the 80s, and yes that was a shitty thing to do).
Given that, it's certainly wouldn't be out of the realm of reason to consider security data which implicated Saddam in such activities. But... you don't go to war without a vetting your intelligence.
So, if that's the case, that means Bush is either a completely gullible buffoon and utterly failed to do minimal source-vetting, or he was maliciously manipulated and lied to by those underneath him (or they didn't perform due diligence). Either way, where's some of this "personal accountability" we hear so much about from the right? (hey, and I'm all for it really, if it's real)
Let's put it this way: If I were president, which I never ever want to be, and shit played out such that I discovered I had been lied-to/duped/etc like that... heads would fucking roll. Bye-bye National Security Advisor, bye-bye Sec. of Defense. The point is: either Bush lied, or those he appointed lied via/to him or were woefully negligent, yet they're all still sitting pretty. Either way, that means something is very very wrong.
And before anyone puts their little pedantic pants on, I fully realize that friction is not just the potential/opposing-potential that holds two objects together; I was glossing it over to get to the good bits.;)
It may be nit-picking, but friction is a big part in this case. Many refrigerator magnets are not stronge enough to work on the bottom of a vertical surface.
Sorta, depending on you how you look at friction. Any time the layperson's concept of "friction" is involved, it usually just means gravity (after all, in a zero-g environment, will two objects directly touching each other stay that way if a force is applied perpendicularly to one of them?)
In this case though, that's not really the type of "friction" in play. Like gravity, electromagnetism follows the inverse square law. And, in your example of a magnet suspended vertically from a horizontal surface, the field effect will rapidly fall off as the magnet's distance from the ferrite increases. In fact, because there is no potential force, other than that created by the magnet, which would balance gravitational potential, any increase in distance between the magnet and the ferrite will cause a drop in magnetomotive effect ("potential electromotive force") as well as true current-potential electromotive force. Thus the only "energy hill" is momentary and equal to that of the magnetomotive effect itself. Like balancing two identically weighted people on a a teeter-totter, as soon as you apply the slighest momentary force to one side, they are on an unstoppable (w/out addl force elsewhere) downward journey.
Not so with a horizontal ferromagnet on a vertical surface. Assuming right angles to the center of gravity, the magnet's distance from the ferrite never increases when gravitional potential becomes true force. The inverse square law has no effect. Now, the gravitional potential must continously meet or beat the non-varying (or very slightly varying) electromotive potential. Because some of the gravitional potential is now actual force (i.e. work is being done), it cannot continously stay "over the hill" as would be required, although if the magnet is weak enough and the two are toe-to-toe, gravity may very well continually "win" but with only enough force to induce minor inertial change and the rest being "consumed" by balancing the non-varying magnetomotive (i.e. the magnet slowly slides down the fridge). Obviously, such a precarious balancing act requires very little change on either side's potential to start a runaway resulting in the magnet either stopping or falling off into inverse-square-law world. This is the facination people have with so-called "permanent magnets"; that it is so easily possible to directly observe and manipulate the equilibrium point between two potentials.
The main cause of magnetism seeming so mysterious to many is that our instinctual inertial and gravitional perception is not what it seems at first glance. We think, instinctively, that we "feel" gravity, but what we're really feeling is a combination of fluid orientation and inertial potential. In other words, rather than perceiving the actual force performing work, we're perceiving potential energy offset by 1g perpendicular to our orientation. When someone "feels" the pull of a magnet, what they're really feeling is the potential for their hand to experience inertial change. If they allow their hand to move, they will mostly cease to notice the real force (they would notice the acceleration, but it's minor in the case of household magnets). Because one must always balance potential in order to prevent it from asserting the lowest possible energy state (i.e. expending itself), people mistakingly perceive this as work-energy when in reality they could balance it equally well with some external non-moving brace which prevented joint movement.
I guess it comes down to this: Effort as "not-work" means there is no real force involved, as you can't actually use it to do a damn thing.
Yeah, I thought he was trolling too. Then I looked at some of his (the GP) previous posts. Not so much.
To the GP, I am not disrespecting your faith, however... you may wish to reconsider any line of logic which posits that the electromotive force, whether represented as a potential "force" or as a true force in the physics sense, is not understood.
Most simplisticly, the reason your ferromagnet remains attached to the fridge instead of falling is because the potential electromotive force generated by the dipoles in the magnet and the fridge is greater than the potential gravitional force between the magnet and the earth. Note the word potential in both clauses. Until the magnet actually moves, no work has been done and thus no energy has been expended. It does not "cost" anything for the magnet to remain attached. If the magnet were weak enough that potential gravity could overrule it, then there would be a cost (for as long as the magnet continued to change inertially), to both the earth's inertia/angular momentum and the related magnetic domains.
I know it must seem magical, but its really just a simple case of the magnet being in the lowest possible rest-state (energy-wise) for that configuration.
You'll notice that it's not called the "Theory of Thermodynamics".
I'm pretty sure God condemns ignorance. i mean really, if the whole point of existance is so intelligent beings would someday develop, ignorance is the antithesis of that. it's ungodly
Subjectively, to any being capable of single-handedly designing everything from the fine-scale structure of the universe up to and including mitochondria and T-cells, I'm willing to bet we'd all pretty much be right around the same point at the bottom of the ignorance graph. Sorta like mold. Do you think some mold is ignorant while other mold clearly is really well educated, refined and capable of cherishing its fellow mold?
Merry CHRISTmas to everyone reading Slashdot, and don't forget the reason for the season.
Yes! Let us once again bow our heads and ponder the deep significance that is our little habital sphere nearing the point in its orbit where its tilt with respect to the ecliptic plane is aligned in just such a way that one hemisphere gets the maximum majority of the primary star's output while the other hemisphere receives the minimum periodic level.
Tis the season to be jolly,.... (yes, I know it already passed)
unfortunately, politics these days pretty much guarantees that any politician who's given the mic for more than 5 seconds absolutely has to bust out some kind of slam against the other party. or blame all the problems in the country on them.
"These days?" The senate filibuster has a distinguished history dating to the original foundation of Congress. It exists to exercise some control over Majoritarianism, and until the 20th century had no specific means of "cloture" by which debate might be procedurally finalized. Do away with this completely and the grand republic is truely dust while we're all one step closer to Jefferson's feared state: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." (which you'll note works great until a period of great polarization when you happen to find yourself on the wrong side of the split)
With software, yes. With a big magnet about 5 seconds.
Dead Man Switch
Three-phase 30amp degaussing coil rigged around non-metallic drive enclosure, connected to relay and microswitch attached to non-accidentally-accessible desk underside. In event of catastrophic law enforcement condition, broil at 1.8 teslas for 15 seconds, season to taste and serve.
Having never seen the show and not caring one bit whether or not it is real:
I have just one question- Why? Why bother to try to hoax an audience? What's the point? Pissing off the viewers? What the fuck does that accomplish? "Hahahaha everyone who watches out show is stupid!" I can see how that would be a fantastic marketing gimmick- No one would ever watch anything from these producers again. Moreover how do you know you succeeded? Everyone will just claim to know it was a joke and then what are you left with? It's complete idiocy.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." People these days are stupid- not just ignorant but downright stupid. That you could trick someone into believing they were being sent into space hardly seems like a difficult task to me.
Note: I work in the mainstream entertainment industry. Yes, I am jaded.
This sort of thing is hardly new, this is just taking it to another level. Reality television is all 100% bogus. No need to directly attribute it to malice though, when common greed will do. The crap sells; in that nasty tabloid way that makes you feel kinda sleazy should you be so unlucky as to be momentarily exposed. But more importantly in the eyes of media conglomerates: it's cheap as hell to make. Script-writers? No need, just throw together some melodrama themes and toss them at these young bright actors all quite willing to do anything and everything for that shot at the big time. Actors love improv anyway. Editing? Bah, cut on any ole NLE with a formulaic sequence of burst cuts optimally timed to introduce the next ad as quickly as possible; easily get two-to-five eps cut in an afternoon with out needing any prior film experience.
One of the leading commercial producers of reality television lives (and has been incredibly successful) by the following motto:
What you are witnessing is the first real reality show backlash. The TV programmers have figured out that there are enough gullible people in the world who watch and believe these shows that they can hire a basically competant series of actors who go through the motions of a reality series. Come on, they've been able to study the reactions of reality show participants for months if not years.
The real "participants" in this series are the audience who laugh at "players" they think are stupid enough to believe what they are going through and post messages on blogs and sites like Slashdot being so witty about America not being the only stupid country. The producers can then show all these blogs and the reactions of audience members who they've interviewed before revealing the that the joke is on them.
Ding, ding, ding... Bingo! We have a winner. Bout damn time.
I'm just amazed at how friggin' gullible the/. "audience" apparently is to fall for this.
Locking vendors into your software isn't a monopolistic practice, it is common every day business practice and has been since time immemorial. You propose instead what? That Microsoft create and give to the world standards that anyone can write to for any platform? That's like telling Hardinge to create and give to the world a universal spindle standard. Standards are adopted by force of market, not idiotic movements.
Microsoft has every right to do with their OS whatever the Hell they wish and it is their job to respond to market forces or go out of business. If you want Linux to be adopted, make it as easy to use for the common user as Windows XP. It isn't, and won't be, because it is dominated by "hard is beautiful because it lets me show off because I have insecurity issues" geeks. XP isn't. My mother-in-law can maneuver through Windows XP Pro and Office XP like a speed demon. Ten years of training would be needed for her figure out how to find xorg.conf to change her monitor resolution and not fark it up. Most of the people thinking Linux is on par with Windows are either seriously delusional or too young to remember the lack of productivity in offices on DOS prior to Windows. It's MS' OS and they've cornered the market simply by putting out a better OS that at its worst is still better than Linux when it is slightly cranky. A truly farked Linux box is masochism delight.
Your post and extreme libertarian viewpoint (and that of the more ultra extreme version, the political anarchist), has a decidedly machavelian ring to it.
Let me preface by stating that I tend to agree with the core fundamental values of libertarianism; I believe a society is generally better off if the reach of the powerful, what it takes the form of restricting the lives of others, is as limited as possible. But, as many wiser than myself have noted throughout history: "All things in moderation"
The notion that any entity, individual or corporation, has some untennable right to use any and all means available in the quest for profit is based on a world-view that doesn't quite mesh with reality. Now, I don't believe you are saying something so extreme, right? I mean, presumably, you would be opposed to allowing a corporation to commit bodily harm as part of their "domination strategy." Assuming your viewpoint is at least that reasoned, what about less direct forms of manipulation (coercion)? Should a company, if capable, be permitted to "blacklist" employees of the competition; e.g. sully their names such that they find future employement difficult if their current employer becomes insolvent?
The point is that there must be a line drawn somewhere, if only because certain members of humanity have a weakness for exploiting others to the detriment of society. It is an overly-simplistic view which considers force to only exist at the end of a gun barrel; that's simply the most direct and final form of it.
If a company or individual has primary control over an essential supply chain, they have the ability to force distributors into exclusively using their product; simply by virtue of the fact that by severing the chain the distibutor will suffer economic disadvantage to the point of being unable to continue operations. This is exactly why we have anti-trust regulation. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with being a monopoly (depending on how you got that way), but the moment you start leverging that as a tool of force to combat existing or new competition, rather than competing on the merits of product alone, you have stepped over the line into societal antagonism.
it was one of the 'nets darker secrets -- e.g. a handful (or more) of people knew about the security hole
Considering that my networking professor told the whole class about it, there are more than a handful of people that know.
For those that don't know, the issue arises out of the way the internet does routing. IPv4 uses a flat routing system. Every key router on the internet knows how many hops away it is from all of the other key routers and which direction the router is in. Consider (the dots are placeholders so slashdot will display my beautiful ASCII art properly):
[cute but erroneous diagram clipped to avoid lameness filter]
Router D knows that it is one hop away from router E. B knows that it is two hops from E. How? Because D tells B that it is one hop away from E, so if B sends a packet to D, D can deliver it in one hop. C knows that it is three hops away.
Now suppose router B goes down. C knows that it can't reach E through its usual three hops, but when it talks to its neighbor to the right, it sees that F can reach E in three hops, so C is now four hops away from E. Now when C sees traffic headed for E, it sends the traffic to F.
How do you poison the system? If one of the key trusted routers, such as C, tells everyone that they are two hops from everywhere, large portions of the internet will try to route through C. If you can take control of a trusted router in each of several key locations, you can confuse the overwhelming majority of the internet into thinking you are offering the best route to their destination.
The short route won't make a big difference for nearby traffic, but traffic headed ten or twenty hops away will wind up going towards C when it should go someplace else.
The above-described mechanism for updating the routing tables is the key to the internet's ability to automatically route around cities that have been destroyed by a nuclear weapon.
Oh good god, what complete and utter BS. Lest anyone believe this is actually how transit routing works:
All public ipv4 transit networks in existence use a routing protocol called BGP4 (Border Gateway Protocol v4 -
rfc1771). BGP is an "inter-autonomous system" routing protocol. That means, as a whole, it has no network awareness of individual routers, links, specific static addresses or locations. Essentially, all it knows is that a set of ip networks comprise an Automous System (labeled via an ARIN/RIPE/APNIC assigned Autonomous System Number). When a bgp router in one AS has an established bgp session with a router in a different AS, it tells the other router all the foreign ASNs that the network is willing to take traffic for and prepends its own ASN to the front of the list. The same is done for networks that originate within the local AS (i.e. the ASN is appended to "nothing" and is thus respresents the final destination AS) [there is also an origin ASN field, but ignoring that for the sake of simplicity]. This list is known as a bgp path. Thus, to find a route(s) to any accessible ipv4 address, a bgp router need only look at all the paths that contain the destination ASN, and the shortest path is generally the best route (although certainly not always). The actual job of routing packets is handled on a per-AS basis; i.e. each network is responsible for knowing, internally, how best to move packets to all the AS' that are connected to it.
You will note, however, that the core problem you describe continues to exist in this model, simply not on a per-router basis. If AS999 sends a path such as "9999 701" to all neighboring ASes, they'll believe that a viable route for traffic destined to AS701 is via AS9999, which, given a large major network, could be extremely distruptive.
However, in reality, this has not been a grave concern for a number of yea
Anyway, I guess the big question is, how many people will actually adopt 2.2.0. I still remember when 2.0 came out to mostly a yawn as most people kept using 1.3.x. Even today, most of the servers that I come across or administer are still using 1.3.x because unless you were running Windows, 2.x didn't really offer spectacular improvements over 1.3.x, and looking at the changes for 2.(1|2).x (anyone who's going to transfer a >2GB file over HTTP is crazy;)), I have this feeling that we might see the same 1.3->2.0 inertia.
The change from 1.3 -> 2.0 was a very major one. The entire api was retooled; and for good reason, ap 1.3 had some rather serious deficiencies in the extensibility department (module load order significance, etc). 2.0 saw the birth of the exceedingly well designed APR (Apache Portable Runtime), a module-participation-driven abi ("hooks") and fast stack-unwinding i/o handling ("fitlers"). All good stuff, but slightly less able performance-wise on low-cpu-count hardware (extensibility always comes with a pricetag) and completely imcompatible with any module of even moderate complexity that had previously been written.
Times have changed though. The robustness of the abi design combined with the APR has led to some outstanding modules, such as extensive state awareness and dynamic load-balance adjustment without even USR1-style interruption. None of these capabilities are even remotely plausible under 1.3.
The point is: 2.2 is still the same core api design. Certainly, it contains some enhancements, but the bridge that must be crossed is miniscule in comparison to the 1.3/2.0 transition.
There is still much room for improvement (when isn't there?). For example, mpm looks like a good idea on paper, but how well does it really work in terms of abstracting the process/thread semantics into fairly "pluggable" components? How well can it really work? Thread-based design requires a completely different approach or the end result (treating threads like processes) simply nets you more "accounting" overhead and few significant gains to offset that (yes, I realize it wins on win32 which does not have a light-weight process model).
While most of the people replying have tried to rubbish the car analogy I think it's pretty much spot on. I love the fact that I don't have to know how the internals of my car work (although I know the basic idea). If something goes wrong (and that's rare) I just give it to a garage to fix. I can't wait until computers reach that level of product maturity. Computers should be even better than a car because the software parts don't wear out.
Not a problem, that can be done right now. I'll build a computer to your exacting specifications. It will count numbers very slowly, or it will count numbers very rapidly, you control the rate! It can count both positive and negative numbers, and it can use varying increments which again.. all under your control! And it will still be in perfect working order long after your car is broken down by the side of the road.
And yes, science IS a religion, although of it's own admission an incomplete one. You see science, as practiced by non politicized scientists, has a problem. Religions try to answer the big questions of Life, The Universe and Everything. But while science does a very good job answering a great many smaller questions, the big ones are defined to be outside the scope of the area science is capable of giving useful answers.
Then let's go with that for a moment.
Science stops at the Big Bang. Science cannot provide any answers to questions a femtosecond before the Bang. And a lot of the really big questions go there. Why is the Universe? What is the Universe? Even "Where are we going?" may be unanswerable without answers about things outside science's scope.
Perhaps you should consider why exactly it is that science "stops at the Big Bang." It stops for the same reason it stops at the singularity; a region of space-time that is disconnected from our consensual causality, because the question is moot. It is impossible to exhange information with causally disconnected space-time and thus it is completely and totally unknowable. In effect there is nothing there, in the purest sense of the word. The answer is meaningless because the question is meaningless.
When you ask a question like "Why is the universe?", what is it exactly that you are asking? Are you seeking to understand purpose? If so, are you only interested in purpose as a human being understands it, or will you include purpose that cannot be humanly understood?
If the former, your question becomes "for what purpose that I can understand does the universe exist?" If, perhaps, there is no such narrowly defined purpose, what answer will satisfy you? Whill you accept "Because."?
On the other hand, perhaps you will put no such limits on this ulimate question. In such a case, there may be a "purpose" that you and your entire species cannot comprehend at your current cognizant capacity. Thus the answer would be "unknowable" or "undefined."
The answer is meaningless because the question is meaningless.
(The astute will quickly note that this condition is subject to change at some future point. The same is true of a scientific question like "what came before the Big Bang?"; if a different understanding of causality and space-time where to emerge. In both cases, the question itself would change.)
Re:Throw your Microsoft boxes into Boston Harbor!
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The article reeks of the mindset you'd expect from Hilary Clinton.
I was right there with you up to the Hilary (sp) reference.
Actually, I would expect the opposite mindset from Hillary Clinton. This is the type of mindset that I would expect from someone who sells their vote to the highest bidder... someone like Tom Delay, or Orrin Hatch.
It's the sort of mindset you can expect from either Clinton, Delay or Hatch. Power begets power, and with the exception of a very select few who manage to stay grounded to their principals (Mandela, etc), those who have it want (a) to keep it and (b) expand it. Fearmongering is a damn good tool for doing so.
I'm sure some of these politicos started out with good intentions. But, every politician knows "You gotta break a few eggs...". By the time you rise to the upper echelon of a major political rank, you're surrounded by egg shells and the omelette is a distant memory.
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon; it's only been going on for the past 10000 years or so.
I'm certainly no expert but I was interested in it myself about half a year ago and bought The New Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnotism. It has two main sections, one of them is more about the theory side of things (although it doesn't go into as much detail as some of the free websites I've read), and the other has a mind boggling huge array of methods and techniques for putting people into the state(s) of hypnosis and the things that are possible when it's achieved. There are some pretty amazing things people can do when in the deeper states of hypnosis, such as "feeling" the hypnotist touch them (on the back, for example) although the hypnotist doesn't actually touch them, instead the fingers are brought an few inches away from the skin. You can also anesthetise parts of the body, so the subject will feel no sensation at all, following this you could, for example, put a sterilised needle through the skin and leave no mark; no blood, no pain and with the subject fully conscious. You can make blisters appear on the skin simply by touching it, and make them disappear as well. There are lots of other amazing things that have slipped my mind atm. Chances are you'll have seen people like Derren Brown do these kind of things on TV (at least here in the UK anyway).
Years ago I apprenticed for a professional stage hypnotist. I ended up deciding show biz wasn't for me, even this decidedly more interesting off-shoot. I still do "shows" for friends and small groups of periphery acquaintances from time-to-time, but certainly nothing that could be remotely considered professional stage. I really only do it because it's amusing to no end when someone who has always lumped hypnotism in with general slight-of-hand stage "magic" gets an intense wake up call (some people get really freaked out, actually, when witnessing it in person for the first time).
More than anything though, my experiences drastically changed my life and how I look at the world and human interaction. To become a good hypnotist one must gain a keen awareness of the human mind and social interaction, not so much in the clinical or therapeutic aspect as a psychiatrist might; more of a healthy day-to-day operational perspective.
There are some slightly disturbing commonalities all people share; as hypnotists know quite well.
Human beings are constantly subject to suggestion, whether we realize it or not. Every time someone suggests a point of view or action that isn't in direct conflict with a core value or need, it has an effect on us; parts of the "lower" layers of the mind will, if unchecked, automatically carry out the suggestion without question and are unaware of concepts like deceipt and betrayal. Most of the time this gets filtered before it makes it to a higher cognitive level, so generally most people never realize it's going on, even though it subtly alters human behavior on a continual basis.
The kicker is: There's no way to shut it off! (outside of completely isolating oneself from human communication or contact) It's coded into our genes (probably closely linked to community-based survival traits -- societal feedback loop), and what was once important for group survival is now being used to "manipulate" (perhaps not the best word; its not like anyone is immune or masterminding it) purely for the sake of commercialism. I speak, of course, of advertisement; which is another group of folks who have a keen understanding of human suggestability.
Next time you are watching television and a commercial break comes up, consider this: Unless you turn the tele off, you will be paying attention to it. Even if you think you're not, part of your mind is still receiving input, processing, storing and naively accepting as truth a suggestion about some wonderous brand's merits. It doesn't matter if you're deep in conversation with someone else; it still gets in. In fact, if you're distracted, you're more open to sugg
That's my point. Creating popular art is hard. The artist deserves to decide how to be compensated.
No. It is not hard. At least not in the way you imply. Artists (true artists, not product placement fabrications) create because they are driven to by whatever force it is that gives most of us some small measure of creativity and a select few an over-abundance. I'm nothing saying that its effortless, but they certainly don't view it as work. The artist is compelled to create, it is his or her raison d'être, and they will do so whether they are wealthy beyond measure or indigent and incarcerated. The original idea behind copyright was that society could both show appreciation and help enable those who are so fortunate (or mis-fortunate, depending on your perspective) by protecting them from being taken advantage of. In doing so, a society recognizes that there is intrinsic value in art which a mere pricetag can never match; and that is what fosters creativity.
The modern thought process which so easily equates creation with a monetary value is a nightmarish twisted version of this intention, and does far more to damage the arts than any lack-of-copyright ever could. It is the ultimate devaluation.
prostitute? in korea? U can't imagine. . . me want you long time! nuther words, nuthin but there.
This oft sampled quote (me so horny, me love you long time) is originally from Kubrick's (rip) classic Full Metal Jacket, a film which brilliantly and disturbingly explores a dichotomy (perhaps even the dichotomy) inherent in human nature. It's set during the Vietnam "conflict" (heh) era. The plot events take place in a marine boot camp preparing infantry for deployment to Vietnam and shortly after, in the country itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with Korea or the US-Korean involvement of the 50s.
But please, don't let such trivial details stop your asian generalizations.
* Off-topic, but can someone explain to me why (at least with ISC dhcpd) I can't assign IPs on two different subnets on the same physical LAN? Can this be done with a different DHCP server? Is there any kind of limitation to the protocol that makes this impossible, or is it just an implementation problem?
You can: man dhcpd.conf
Pay special attention to the shared-network section.
Not saying you're incorrect, but I would think that a watch certfied "100 meters water resisitant" would survive if I dived that deep.
It would not. Resistant watches are rated at static pressure, not dynamic as a real dive would be. Of course, unless you are a professional or extremely experienced recreational diver familiar with the intricacies of mixed-gas and deep diving, chances are you won't survive a 100 meter dive either.
I think you've got a good point. A lot of Christians are not hostile to the idea of evolution.
I think it makes the most sense to leave the theology to the theologians and the science to the scientists.
Science is looking for an explaination for how a rational world works, while religion is looking for an explaination for why the world is rational. These aren't the same and can co-exist quite nicely in the minds of many with religious beliefs.
It occurs to me that the real question worth pondering is: Why? Why is this battle between science and religion, which has raged for hundreds of years, still ongoing to this day?
This is not solely on the shoulders of the most vocal religious proponents; there exist "dogmatic atheists", who do little for the benefit of mankind in their relentless pursuit of "non-diety." However, traditionally this war has seen established religious organizations as the aggressors.
Perhaps "Why?" is just too loaded of a question. What flaw in human nature causes some small minority of mankind to subject, in whatever way they can, a specific unquestionable belief system upon others in a society? Such is the stuff of much ancient and (some) wise philosophy.
As a whole, what science has well illuminated, since the dawn of critical thinking, is that mystery is far from a being in short supply. With each unlocked door comes another maze filled with new twisting, turning passages and a plethora of unimagined portals waiting to be examined. An optimist might hope that, given time, humanity would recognize a somewhat discomforting fact: Our answers to the most mysterious and difficult questions (from both religion and science) are almost assuredly either completely wrong or fundamentally primitive. This is not to say that attempts at continued understanding and insight should be abandoned; after all, it's often possible to become less wrong.
It could equally be a new super dense form of matter that we don't yet understand. Their claim that if it were a super dense form of matter then it must turn into a black hole sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Yeah, maybe it's some super dense form of matter. Something even more dense than "neutronium" (or whatever the hell you call the stuff of neutron stars). And maybe they can't see anything because there's so much of this new type of matter tightly packed together that the escape velocity above the "surface" exceeds the speed of light? Hey.. wait a second, I think you might be on to something here!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so maybe Bush did believe there were WMDs. I don't think I've heard anyone saying Saddam was a nice guy or anything, it's pretty much agreed in all parts of the civilized world, no matter what your political leanings, he was a grade A asshole (yes, I know the US pandered to him in the 80s, and yes that was a shitty thing to do).
Given that, it's certainly wouldn't be out of the realm of reason to consider security data which implicated Saddam in such activities. But... you don't go to war without a vetting your intelligence.
So, if that's the case, that means Bush is either a completely gullible buffoon and utterly failed to do minimal source-vetting, or he was maliciously manipulated and lied to by those underneath him (or they didn't perform due diligence). Either way, where's some of this "personal accountability" we hear so much about from the right? (hey, and I'm all for it really, if it's real)
Let's put it this way: If I were president, which I never ever want to be, and shit played out such that I discovered I had been lied-to/duped/etc like that
And before anyone puts their little pedantic pants on, I fully realize that friction is not just the potential/opposing-potential that holds two objects together; I was glossing it over to get to the good bits. ;)
Sorta, depending on you how you look at friction. Any time the layperson's concept of "friction" is involved, it usually just means gravity (after all, in a zero-g environment, will two objects directly touching each other stay that way if a force is applied perpendicularly to one of them?)
In this case though, that's not really the type of "friction" in play. Like gravity, electromagnetism follows the inverse square law. And, in your example of a magnet suspended vertically from a horizontal surface, the field effect will rapidly fall off as the magnet's distance from the ferrite increases. In fact, because there is no potential force, other than that created by the magnet, which would balance gravitational potential, any increase in distance between the magnet and the ferrite will cause a drop in magnetomotive effect ("potential electromotive force") as well as true current-potential electromotive force. Thus the only "energy hill" is momentary and equal to that of the magnetomotive effect itself. Like balancing two identically weighted people on a a teeter-totter, as soon as you apply the slighest momentary force to one side, they are on an unstoppable (w/out addl force elsewhere) downward journey.
Not so with a horizontal ferromagnet on a vertical surface. Assuming right angles to the center of gravity, the magnet's distance from the ferrite never increases when gravitional potential becomes true force. The inverse square law has no effect. Now, the gravitional potential must continously meet or beat the non-varying (or very slightly varying) electromotive potential. Because some of the gravitional potential is now actual force (i.e. work is being done), it cannot continously stay "over the hill" as would be required, although if the magnet is weak enough and the two are toe-to-toe, gravity may very well continually "win" but with only enough force to induce minor inertial change and the rest being "consumed" by balancing the non-varying magnetomotive (i.e. the magnet slowly slides down the fridge). Obviously, such a precarious balancing act requires very little change on either side's potential to start a runaway resulting in the magnet either stopping or falling off into inverse-square-law world. This is the facination people have with so-called "permanent magnets"; that it is so easily possible to directly observe and manipulate the equilibrium point between two potentials.
The main cause of magnetism seeming so mysterious to many is that our instinctual inertial and gravitional perception is not what it seems at first glance. We think, instinctively, that we "feel" gravity, but what we're really feeling is a combination of fluid orientation and inertial potential. In other words, rather than perceiving the actual force performing work, we're perceiving potential energy offset by 1g perpendicular to our orientation. When someone "feels" the pull of a magnet, what they're really feeling is the potential for their hand to experience inertial change. If they allow their hand to move, they will mostly cease to notice the real force (they would notice the acceleration, but it's minor in the case of household magnets). Because one must always balance potential in order to prevent it from asserting the lowest possible energy state (i.e. expending itself), people mistakingly perceive this as work-energy when in reality they could balance it equally well with some external non-moving brace which prevented joint movement.
I guess it comes down to this: Effort as "not-work" means there is no real force involved, as you can't actually use it to do a damn thing.
Yeah, I thought he was trolling too. Then I looked at some of his (the GP) previous posts. Not so much.
To the GP, I am not disrespecting your faith, however
Most simplisticly, the reason your ferromagnet remains attached to the fridge instead of falling is because the potential electromotive force generated by the dipoles in the magnet and the fridge is greater than the potential gravitional force between the magnet and the earth. Note the word potential in both clauses. Until the magnet actually moves, no work has been done and thus no energy has been expended. It does not "cost" anything for the magnet to remain attached. If the magnet were weak enough that potential gravity could overrule it, then there would be a cost (for as long as the magnet continued to change inertially), to both the earth's inertia/angular momentum and the related magnetic domains.
I know it must seem magical, but its really just a simple case of the magnet being in the lowest possible rest-state (energy-wise) for that configuration.
You'll notice that it's not called the "Theory of Thermodynamics".
Subjectively, to any being capable of single-handedly designing everything from the fine-scale structure of the universe up to and including mitochondria and T-cells, I'm willing to bet we'd all pretty much be right around the same point at the bottom of the ignorance graph. Sorta like mold. Do you think some mold is ignorant while other mold clearly is really well educated, refined and capable of cherishing its fellow mold?
Yes! Let us once again bow our heads and ponder the deep significance that is our little habital sphere nearing the point in its orbit where its tilt with respect to the ecliptic plane is aligned in just such a way that one hemisphere gets the maximum majority of the primary star's output while the other hemisphere receives the minimum periodic level.
Tis the season to be jolly,
(yes, I know it already passed)
Well, thank you Captain Descartes.
unfortunately, politics these days pretty much guarantees that any politician who's given the mic for more than 5 seconds absolutely has to bust out some kind of slam against the other party. or blame all the problems in the country on them.
"These days?" The senate filibuster has a distinguished history dating to the original foundation of Congress. It exists to exercise some control over Majoritarianism, and until the 20th century had no specific means of "cloture" by which debate might be procedurally finalized. Do away with this completely and the grand republic is truely dust while we're all one step closer to Jefferson's feared state: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." (which you'll note works great until a period of great polarization when you happen to find yourself on the wrong side of the split)
Hours?
With software, yes. With a big magnet about 5 seconds.
Dead Man Switch
Three-phase 30amp degaussing coil rigged around non-metallic drive enclosure, connected to relay and microswitch attached to non-accidentally-accessible desk underside. In event of catastrophic law enforcement condition, broil at 1.8 teslas for 15 seconds, season to taste and serve.
Having never seen the show and not caring one bit whether or not it is real:
... No Steak
I have just one question- Why? Why bother to try to hoax an audience? What's the point? Pissing off the viewers? What the fuck does that accomplish? "Hahahaha everyone who watches out show is stupid!" I can see how that would be a fantastic marketing gimmick- No one would ever watch anything from these producers again. Moreover how do you know you succeeded? Everyone will just claim to know it was a joke and then what are you left with? It's complete idiocy.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." People these days are stupid- not just ignorant but downright stupid. That you could trick someone into believing they were being sent into space hardly seems like a difficult task to me.
Note: I work in the mainstream entertainment industry. Yes, I am jaded.
This sort of thing is hardly new, this is just taking it to another level. Reality television is all 100% bogus. No need to directly attribute it to malice though, when common greed will do. The crap sells; in that nasty tabloid way that makes you feel kinda sleazy should you be so unlucky as to be momentarily exposed. But more importantly in the eyes of media conglomerates: it's cheap as hell to make. Script-writers? No need, just throw together some melodrama themes and toss them at these young bright actors all quite willing to do anything and everything for that shot at the big time. Actors love improv anyway. Editing? Bah, cut on any ole NLE with a formulaic sequence of burst cuts optimally timed to introduce the next ad as quickly as possible; easily get two-to-five eps cut in an afternoon with out needing any prior film experience.
One of the leading commercial producers of reality television lives (and has been incredibly successful) by the following motto:
All Sizzle
Of course the "astronauts" know it's just a show.
... Bingo! We have a winner. Bout damn time.
/. "audience" apparently is to fall for this.
Of course they know they're not in space.
What you are witnessing is the first real reality show backlash. The TV programmers have figured out that there are enough gullible people in the world who watch and believe these shows that they can hire a basically competant series of actors who go through the motions of a reality series. Come on, they've been able to study the reactions of reality show participants for months if not years.
The real "participants" in this series are the audience who laugh at "players" they think are stupid enough to believe what they are going through and post messages on blogs and sites like Slashdot being so witty about America not being the only stupid country. The producers can then show all these blogs and the reactions of audience members who they've interviewed before revealing the that the joke is on them.
Ding, ding, ding
I'm just amazed at how friggin' gullible the
Locking vendors into your software isn't a monopolistic practice, it is common every day business practice and has been since time immemorial. You propose instead what? That Microsoft create and give to the world standards that anyone can write to for any platform? That's like telling Hardinge to create and give to the world a universal spindle standard. Standards are adopted by force of market, not idiotic movements.
Microsoft has every right to do with their OS whatever the Hell they wish and it is their job to respond to market forces or go out of business. If you want Linux to be adopted, make it as easy to use for the common user as Windows XP. It isn't, and won't be, because it is dominated by "hard is beautiful because it lets me show off because I have insecurity issues" geeks. XP isn't. My mother-in-law can maneuver through Windows XP Pro and Office XP like a speed demon. Ten years of training would be needed for her figure out how to find xorg.conf to change her monitor resolution and not fark it up. Most of the people thinking Linux is on par with Windows are either seriously delusional or too young to remember the lack of productivity in offices on DOS prior to Windows. It's MS' OS and they've cornered the market simply by putting out a better OS that at its worst is still better than Linux when it is slightly cranky. A truly farked Linux box is masochism delight.
Your post and extreme libertarian viewpoint (and that of the more ultra extreme version, the political anarchist), has a decidedly machavelian ring to it.
Let me preface by stating that I tend to agree with the core fundamental values of libertarianism; I believe a society is generally better off if the reach of the powerful, what it takes the form of restricting the lives of others, is as limited as possible. But, as many wiser than myself have noted throughout history: "All things in moderation"
The notion that any entity, individual or corporation, has some untennable right to use any and all means available in the quest for profit is based on a world-view that doesn't quite mesh with reality. Now, I don't believe you are saying something so extreme, right? I mean, presumably, you would be opposed to allowing a corporation to commit bodily harm as part of their "domination strategy." Assuming your viewpoint is at least that reasoned, what about less direct forms of manipulation (coercion)? Should a company, if capable, be permitted to "blacklist" employees of the competition; e.g. sully their names such that they find future employement difficult if their current employer becomes insolvent?
The point is that there must be a line drawn somewhere , if only because certain members of humanity have a weakness for exploiting others to the detriment of society. It is an overly-simplistic view which considers force to only exist at the end of a gun barrel; that's simply the most direct and final form of it.
If a company or individual has primary control over an essential supply chain, they have the ability to force distributors into exclusively using their product; simply by virtue of the fact that by severing the chain the distibutor will suffer economic disadvantage to the point of being unable to continue operations. This is exactly why we have anti-trust regulation. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with being a monopoly (depending on how you got that way), but the moment you start leverging that as a tool of force to combat existing or new competition, rather than competing on the merits of product alone, you have stepped over the line into societal antagonism.
Considering that my networking professor told the whole class about it, there are more than a handful of people that know.
For those that don't know, the issue arises out of the way the internet does routing. IPv4 uses a flat routing system. Every key router on the internet knows how many hops away it is from all of the other key routers and which direction the router is in. Consider (the dots are placeholders so slashdot will display my beautiful ASCII art properly):
[cute but erroneous diagram clipped to avoid lameness filter]
Router D knows that it is one hop away from router E. B knows that it is two hops from E. How? Because D tells B that it is one hop away from E, so if B sends a packet to D, D can deliver it in one hop. C knows that it is three hops away.
Now suppose router B goes down. C knows that it can't reach E through its usual three hops, but when it talks to its neighbor to the right, it sees that F can reach E in three hops, so C is now four hops away from E. Now when C sees traffic headed for E, it sends the traffic to F.
How do you poison the system? If one of the key trusted routers, such as C, tells everyone that they are two hops from everywhere, large portions of the internet will try to route through C. If you can take control of a trusted router in each of several key locations, you can confuse the overwhelming majority of the internet into thinking you are offering the best route to their destination.
The short route won't make a big difference for nearby traffic, but traffic headed ten or twenty hops away will wind up going towards C when it should go someplace else.
The above-described mechanism for updating the routing tables is the key to the internet's ability to automatically route around cities that have been destroyed by a nuclear weapon.
Oh good god, what complete and utter BS. Lest anyone believe this is actually how transit routing works:
All public ipv4 transit networks in existence use a routing protocol called BGP4 (Border Gateway Protocol v4 - rfc1771). BGP is an "inter-autonomous system" routing protocol. That means, as a whole, it has no network awareness of individual routers, links, specific static addresses or locations. Essentially, all it knows is that a set of ip networks comprise an Automous System (labeled via an ARIN/RIPE/APNIC assigned Autonomous System Number). When a bgp router in one AS has an established bgp session with a router in a different AS, it tells the other router all the foreign ASNs that the network is willing to take traffic for and prepends its own ASN to the front of the list. The same is done for networks that originate within the local AS (i.e. the ASN is appended to "nothing" and is thus respresents the final destination AS) [there is also an origin ASN field, but ignoring that for the sake of simplicity]. This list is known as a bgp path. Thus, to find a route(s) to any accessible ipv4 address, a bgp router need only look at all the paths that contain the destination ASN, and the shortest path is generally the best route (although certainly not always). The actual job of routing packets is handled on a per-AS basis; i.e. each network is responsible for knowing, internally, how best to move packets to all the AS' that are connected to it.
You will note, however, that the core problem you describe continues to exist in this model, simply not on a per-router basis. If AS999 sends a path such as "9999 701" to all neighboring ASes, they'll believe that a viable route for traffic destined to AS701 is via AS9999, which, given a large major network, could be extremely distruptive.
However, in reality, this has not been a grave concern for a number of yea
Anyway, I guess the big question is, how many people will actually adopt 2.2.0. I still remember when 2.0 came out to mostly a yawn as most people kept using 1.3.x. Even today, most of the servers that I come across or administer are still using 1.3.x because unless you were running Windows, 2.x didn't really offer spectacular improvements over 1.3.x, and looking at the changes for 2.(1|2).x (anyone who's going to transfer a >2GB file over HTTP is crazy ;)), I have this feeling that we might see the same 1.3->2.0 inertia.
The change from 1.3 -> 2.0 was a very major one. The entire api was retooled; and for good reason, ap 1.3 had some rather serious deficiencies in the extensibility department (module load order significance, etc). 2.0 saw the birth of the exceedingly well designed APR (Apache Portable Runtime), a module-participation-driven abi ("hooks") and fast stack-unwinding i/o handling ("fitlers"). All good stuff, but slightly less able performance-wise on low-cpu-count hardware (extensibility always comes with a pricetag) and completely imcompatible with any module of even moderate complexity that had previously been written.
Times have changed though. The robustness of the abi design combined with the APR has led to some outstanding modules, such as extensive state awareness and dynamic load-balance adjustment without even USR1-style interruption. None of these capabilities are even remotely plausible under 1.3.
The point is: 2.2 is still the same core api design. Certainly, it contains some enhancements, but the bridge that must be crossed is miniscule in comparison to the 1.3/2.0 transition.
There is still much room for improvement (when isn't there?). For example, mpm looks like a good idea on paper, but how well does it really work in terms of abstracting the process/thread semantics into fairly "pluggable" components? How well can it really work? Thread-based design requires a completely different approach or the end result (treating threads like processes) simply nets you more "accounting" overhead and few significant gains to offset that (yes, I realize it wins on win32 which does not have a light-weight process model).
Not a problem, that can be done right now. I'll build a computer to your exacting specifications. It will count numbers very slowly, or it will count numbers very rapidly, you control the rate! It can count both positive and negative numbers, and it can use varying increments which again
That work for ya?
And yes, science IS a religion, although of it's own admission an incomplete one. You see science, as practiced by non politicized scientists, has a problem. Religions try to answer the big questions of Life, The Universe and Everything. But while science does a very good job answering a great many smaller questions, the big ones are defined to be outside the scope of the area science is capable of giving useful answers.
Then let's go with that for a moment.
Science stops at the Big Bang. Science cannot provide any answers to questions a femtosecond before the Bang. And a lot of the really big questions go there. Why is the Universe? What is the Universe? Even "Where are we going?" may be unanswerable without answers about things outside science's scope.
Perhaps you should consider why exactly it is that science "stops at the Big Bang." It stops for the same reason it stops at the singularity; a region of space-time that is disconnected from our consensual causality, because the question is moot. It is impossible to exhange information with causally disconnected space-time and thus it is completely and totally unknowable. In effect there is nothing there, in the purest sense of the word. The answer is meaningless because the question is meaningless.
When you ask a question like "Why is the universe?", what is it exactly that you are asking? Are you seeking to understand purpose? If so, are you only interested in purpose as a human being understands it, or will you include purpose that cannot be humanly understood?
If the former, your question becomes "for what purpose that I can understand does the universe exist?" If, perhaps, there is no such narrowly defined purpose, what answer will satisfy you? Whill you accept "Because."?
On the other hand, perhaps you will put no such limits on this ulimate question. In such a case, there may be a "purpose" that you and your entire species cannot comprehend at your current cognizant capacity. Thus the answer would be "unknowable" or "undefined."
The answer is meaningless because the question is meaningless.
(The astute will quickly note that this condition is subject to change at some future point. The same is true of a scientific question like "what came before the Big Bang?"; if a different understanding of causality and space-time where to emerge. In both cases, the question itself would change.)
The article reeks of the mindset you'd expect from Hilary Clinton.
...". By the time you rise to the upper echelon of a major political rank, you're surrounded by egg shells and the omelette is a distant memory.
I was right there with you up to the Hilary (sp) reference.
Actually, I would expect the opposite mindset from Hillary Clinton. This is the type of mindset that I would expect from someone who sells their vote to the highest bidder... someone like Tom Delay, or Orrin Hatch.
It's the sort of mindset you can expect from either Clinton, Delay or Hatch. Power begets power, and with the exception of a very select few who manage to stay grounded to their principals (Mandela, etc), those who have it want (a) to keep it and (b) expand it. Fearmongering is a damn good tool for doing so.
I'm sure some of these politicos started out with good intentions. But, every politician knows "You gotta break a few eggs
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon; it's only been going on for the past 10000 years or so.
Years ago I apprenticed for a professional stage hypnotist. I ended up deciding show biz wasn't for me, even this decidedly more interesting off-shoot. I still do "shows" for friends and small groups of periphery acquaintances from time-to-time, but certainly nothing that could be remotely considered professional stage. I really only do it because it's amusing to no end when someone who has always lumped hypnotism in with general slight-of-hand stage "magic" gets an intense wake up call (some people get really freaked out, actually, when witnessing it in person for the first time).
More than anything though, my experiences drastically changed my life and how I look at the world and human interaction. To become a good hypnotist one must gain a keen awareness of the human mind and social interaction, not so much in the clinical or therapeutic aspect as a psychiatrist might; more of a healthy day-to-day operational perspective.
There are some slightly disturbing commonalities all people share; as hypnotists know quite well.
Human beings are constantly subject to suggestion, whether we realize it or not. Every time someone suggests a point of view or action that isn't in direct conflict with a core value or need, it has an effect on us; parts of the "lower" layers of the mind will, if unchecked, automatically carry out the suggestion without question and are unaware of concepts like deceipt and betrayal. Most of the time this gets filtered before it makes it to a higher cognitive level, so generally most people never realize it's going on, even though it subtly alters human behavior on a continual basis.
The kicker is: There's no way to shut it off! (outside of completely isolating oneself from human communication or contact) It's coded into our genes (probably closely linked to community-based survival traits -- societal feedback loop), and what was once important for group survival is now being used to "manipulate" (perhaps not the best word; its not like anyone is immune or masterminding it) purely for the sake of commercialism. I speak, of course, of advertisement; which is another group of folks who have a keen understanding of human suggestability.
Next time you are watching television and a commercial break comes up, consider this: Unless you turn the tele off, you will be paying attention to it. Even if you think you're not, part of your mind is still receiving input, processing, storing and naively accepting as truth a suggestion about some wonderous brand's merits. It doesn't matter if you're deep in conversation with someone else; it still gets in. In fact, if you're distracted, you're more open to sugg
That's my point. Creating popular art is hard. The artist deserves to decide how to be compensated.
No. It is not hard. At least not in the way you imply. Artists (true artists, not product placement fabrications) create because they are driven to by whatever force it is that gives most of us some small measure of creativity and a select few an over-abundance. I'm nothing saying that its effortless, but they certainly don't view it as work . The artist is compelled to create, it is his or her raison d'être, and they will do so whether they are wealthy beyond measure or indigent and incarcerated. The original idea behind copyright was that society could both show appreciation and help enable those who are so fortunate (or mis-fortunate, depending on your perspective) by protecting them from being taken advantage of. In doing so, a society recognizes that there is intrinsic value in art which a mere pricetag can never match; and that is what fosters creativity.
The modern thought process which so easily equates creation with a monetary value is a nightmarish twisted version of this intention, and does far more to damage the arts than any lack-of-copyright ever could. It is the ultimate devaluation.
While there is no concrete proof for either the dent in spacetime
No? Checked the precession of the perihelion of Mercury lately? =P
(yes, yes, I know it's not "concrete proof", and that other alternative theories claim to offer solutions)
prostitute? in korea? U can't imagine. . . me want you long time! nuther words, nuthin but there.
This oft sampled quote (me so horny, me love you long time) is originally from Kubrick's (rip) classic Full Metal Jacket, a film which brilliantly and disturbingly explores a dichotomy (perhaps even the dichotomy) inherent in human nature. It's set during the Vietnam "conflict" (heh) era. The plot events take place in a marine boot camp preparing infantry for deployment to Vietnam and shortly after, in the country itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with Korea or the US-Korean involvement of the 50s.
But please, don't let such trivial details stop your asian generalizations.
* Off-topic, but can someone explain to me why (at least with ISC dhcpd) I can't assign IPs on two different subnets on the same physical LAN? Can this be done with a different DHCP server? Is there any kind of limitation to the protocol that makes this impossible, or is it just an implementation problem?
You can: man dhcpd.conf
Pay special attention to the shared-network section.
Not saying you're incorrect, but I would think that a watch certfied "100 meters water resisitant" would survive if I dived that deep.
It would not. Resistant watches are rated at static pressure, not dynamic as a real dive would be. Of course, unless you are a professional or extremely experienced recreational diver familiar with the intricacies of mixed-gas and deep diving, chances are you won't survive a 100 meter dive either.
I think you've got a good point. A lot of Christians are not hostile to the idea of evolution.
I think it makes the most sense to leave the theology to the theologians and the science to the scientists.
Science is looking for an explaination for how a rational world works, while religion is looking for an explaination for why the world is rational. These aren't the same and can co-exist quite nicely in the minds of many with religious beliefs.
It occurs to me that the real question worth pondering is: Why? Why is this battle between science and religion, which has raged for hundreds of years, still ongoing to this day?
This is not solely on the shoulders of the most vocal religious proponents; there exist "dogmatic atheists", who do little for the benefit of mankind in their relentless pursuit of "non-diety." However, traditionally this war has seen established religious organizations as the aggressors.
Perhaps "Why?" is just too loaded of a question. What flaw in human nature causes some small minority of mankind to subject, in whatever way they can, a specific unquestionable belief system upon others in a society? Such is the stuff of much ancient and (some) wise philosophy.
As a whole, what science has well illuminated, since the dawn of critical thinking, is that mystery is far from a being in short supply. With each unlocked door comes another maze filled with new twisting, turning passages and a plethora of unimagined portals waiting to be examined. An optimist might hope that, given time, humanity would recognize a somewhat discomforting fact: Our answers to the most mysterious and difficult questions (from both religion and science) are almost assuredly either completely wrong or fundamentally primitive. This is not to say that attempts at continued understanding and insight should be abandoned; after all, it's often possible to become less wrong.
It could equally be a new super dense form of matter that we don't yet understand. Their claim that if it were a super dense form of matter then it must turn into a black hole sounds like wishful thinking to me.
.. wait a second, I think you might be on to something here!
Yeah, maybe it's some super dense form of matter. Something even more dense than "neutronium" (or whatever the hell you call the stuff of neutron stars). And maybe they can't see anything because there's so much of this new type of matter tightly packed together that the escape velocity above the "surface" exceeds the speed of light? Hey