User: sjwt

Re:The right decision

On: 'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional

whys it allways guys?

do ppl seem to think women dont abuse young
boys??

it happens, but
generly the woman gets off with a realy light
sentance.. it sucks

Re:R&J

On: 'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional

"Many a younger girl has been made a happy mother"
the nurse from R&J

Re:So which one is Atlantis?

On: Sunken City Found Off Of India

shoudl be a limit on mod as to what its set too..

funny should be limted at +1..

oh, and poor fools like me who got moded
down like a year ago, just a -1.. but i was only on 1 sould get there 1 point back after some
point in time..

Re:Old news, more info below

On: Time Travel

> a second light beam, circulating in the opposite direction. Then if you
> increase the intensity of the light enough, space and time swap roles:
> inside the circulating light beam, time runs round and round, while what
> to an outsider looks like time becomes like an ordinary dimension of space.
> A person walking along in the right direction could actually be walking
> backwards in time -- as measured outside the circle. So after walking for a
> while, you could leave the circle and meet yourself before you have entered
> it (see Diagram, http://www.newscientist.com/ns_images/2291/22911F3 . PG).
>
> The energy needed to twist time into a loop is enormous, however. Perhaps
> this wouldn't be a practical time machine after all? But when Mallett took
> another look at his solutions, he saw that the effect of circulating light
> depends on its velocity: the slower the light, the stronger the distortion
> in space-time. Though it seems counter-intuitive, light gains inertia as
> it is slowed down. "Increasing its inertia increases its energy, and this
> increases the effect," Mallett says. As luck would have it, slowing light
> down has just become a practical possibility. Lene Hau of Harvard University
> has slowed light from the usual 300,000 kilometres per second to just a few
> metres per second -- and even to a standstill (New Scientist, 27 January,
> p 4). "Prior to this, I wouldn't have thought time travel this way was a
> practical possibility," Mallett says. "But the slow light opens up a domain
> we just haven't had before."
>
> To slow light down, Hau uses an ultra-cold bath of atoms known as a
> Bose-Einstein condensate. "All you need is to have the light circulate in
> one of these media," Mallett says. "It's a technological problem. I'm not
> saying it's easy, but we're not talking about exotic technology here; we're
> not talking about creating wormholes in space."
>
> Mallett has already caught the interest of his head of department, William
> Stwalley, who leads a group of cold-atom researchers. Their first experiment
> will be designed only to observe the twisting of space, by looking for its
> effect on the spin of a particle trapped in the light circle. If they can
> then add a second beam, Mallett believes evidence of time travel will
> eventually appear. He's not sure how time travel would manifest itself.
> Perhaps what starts out as a single trapped particle would acquire a
> partner -- the particle visiting itself from the future.
>
> Stwalley is more interested in the practical challenges of the experiment,
> and remains sceptical about possibilities of time travel. "A time machine
> certainly seems like a distant improbability at best," he says.
>
> Last month, Mallett gave his first talk on the idea at the University of
> Michigan at the invitation of astrophysicist Fred Adams, who accepts that
> the theoretical side of Mallett's work stands up to scrutiny. "The reception
> was cautious and sceptical," Adams admits. "But there were no holes punched
> in it, either. The solution is probably valid."
>
> But even Adams isn't convinced that the experiment will work. That's hardly
> surprising, as time travel raises disturbing questions. Could you go back
> and murder your grandparents, making your birth impossible? There may be
> ways out of this problem (see "Paradox lost" [below]), but most physicists
> think that any attempt to mess with history should be impossible. The
> Cambridge astrophysicist Stephen Hawking calls this the "chronology
> protection conjecture".
>
> The general theory of relativity, which Mallett used to work out his theory
> of time travel, does not take account of quantum mechanics. Could this be
> the crucial omission that means time machines won't work in the real
> Universe? Hawking and Thorne say that any time machine would magnify quantum
> fluctuations in the electromagnetic field, and destroy itself with a beam
> of intense radiation. But to know for sure, we need a theory of quantum
> gravity -- a theory that merges quantum theory with relativity.
>
> Even Mallett doesn't claim that time travel is definitely within reach.
> "Whether it will do what I predict is something that one will only know by
> performing the actual experiment," he says. Then there's the problem of
> getting on and off the loop of time without destroying it -- or yourself.
> "I really don't know whether you could use this in the sense of H. G.
> Wells's time machine," says Mallett.
>
> But who knows? In a few years, we may have entered an era when time travel
> is possible, and all kinds of strange people, things and situations from
> the future might come to visit. One thing seems certain, though. Even if
> the Connecticut time machine works, it won't be taking any Yankees back to
> the court of King Arthur. Mallett's circle of light won't allow anyone to
> travel back beyond the point where time first formed a closed loop. So it
> will be impossible to go back to a time before it was set up. "A later
> person could only travel back to the time when the machine is turned on,"
> Mallett says. This may explain why we have never been overrun by visitors
> from the future. It also means that although Mallett might change the
> Universe, he won't ever achieve his childhood dream. Mallet's father will
> remain forever beyond his reach.
>
>
> Paradox lost
>
> Time travel is littered with paradoxes. The most notorious is the idea of
> travelling back to the time before your parents were born and killing your
> grandparents, making it impossible that you would ever exist. And if you
> didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to travel back, so you wouldn't kill
> your grandparents, so you would be born after all ... Any influence on the
> past can lead to self-contradictory logical loops like this.
>
> People have dreamed up ways to try to break out of the loop. One is the
> "consistent histories" approach, which says that you must be somehow
> forbidden from doing anything that would change the past. However hard you
> try, something will stop your killing spree. But this is uncomfortably
> deterministic. In a universe with time travel, should everything be
> predetermined?
>
> Another way out is the "alternative histories" hypothesis. In this idea,
> you go back to a different history from the one you left. You are free
> to do anything in this alternate version of history -- killing your
> grandparents included. It won't change anything in the history where you
> originated.
>
> This has parallels in the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics,
> an explanation of how the bizarre quantum laws allow unobserved particles
> such as atoms and electrons to be in two places at once. Every time an
> observation forces them to choose one position or another, a new universe
> is created -- one where they took one position, one where they took the
> other. So perhaps a time machine would take you into a parallel universe.
>
> ###
>
> Michael Brooks is a Features Editor at New Scientist
>
> New Scientist issue: 19 May 2001
>
> PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF PUBLISHING
> ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com
>
>
> --
> Andrew Yee
> ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca
>
>

Old news, more info below

On: Time Travel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Yee"
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 1:34 AM
Subject: Time Twister (Forwarded)

> New Scientist
> http://www.newscientist.com
>
> Contact:
> Claire Bowles, claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk, 44-207-331-2751
>
> EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: May 16, 2001, 14:00 EDT US
>
> Time Twister
>
> Before your children are born, their children could turn up at your door.
> Michael Brooks discovers how to turn the future into the past
>
> RONALD MALLETT thinks he has found a practical way to make a time machine.
> Mallett isn't mad. None of the known laws of physics forbids time travel,
> and in theory, shunting matter back and forth through time shouldn't be that
> difficult.
>
> The catch usually comes when you try to make it work in practice. Remember
> wormholes, those clever little tunnels in space and time that can supposedly
> be used to travel from one moment to another? On paper, they're a perfectly
> respectable way to travel back in time. Trouble is, you need a supply of
> exotic "negative energy" matter to prise your wormhole open.
>
> But Mallett, a professor of theoretical physics at Connecticut University,
> believes he has found a route to the past that uses something much more down
> to earth: light. Mallett has worked out that a circulating beam of light,
> slowed to a snail's pace, just might be the vital ingredient for time travel.
> Not only is the technology within our grasp, Mallett has teamed up with
> other scientists at Connecticut to work towards building it. "With this
> device," he says, "time travel may become a practical possibility."
>
> It may be hard for us to climb into Mallett's time machine, as slowing light
> down requires temperatures close to absolute zero. But future, advanced
> civilisations might work out a way to do it. And they might even come back
> to tell us how. If it works in the way Mallett believes it might, his device
> would provide time travellers from the future with their first gateway into
> our history.
>
> Mallett began his journey into the past when he was just ten years old. In
> 1955, his father died of a heart attack. "For me, the sun rose and set on
> him. It completely devastated me," Mallett says. But then he came across
> The Time Machine by H. G. Wells. Even as a child, Mallett knew his father
> hadn't taken care of himself. Drinking and heavy smoking took a toll on
> his weak heart, and it gave out at the age of 33. "My notion was that if
> I could build a time machine, I might be able to warn him about what was
> going to happen," Mallett says. "That became my guiding light."
>
> What started as a childish notion grew into a passionate investigation of
> everything ever written about time travel. When Mallett studied the work
> of Einstein -- who died in the same year as his father -- he realised that
> Wells's novel was right on track: time travel is, in theory at least,
> achievable.
>
> Einstein himself found the notion upsetting, but he had only himself to
> blame. He showed that the effect we call gravity is a bending of space and
> time. Anything that has mass or energy distorts the space and the passage
> of time in its vicinity, a bit like the way the surface of a soft couch is
> distorted when someone sits on it. Solving Einstein's gravitational field
> equations tells you just how space-time is distorted by mass and energy.
>
> A lump of matter stretches space and time. So, for example, clocks run
> slower in the gravitational field close to Earth than they do far out in
> space. And if you set a massive lump spinning, it begins to whip space and
> time around after it, like a rotating teaspoon dragging the foam on a cup
> of coffee. The denser and faster-moving the matter, the more strongly it
> distorts space-time.
>
> Take this idea far enough, and you find that time can be twisted so much
> that instead of running in an infinite line from past to future, it is
> bent into a ring. Follow this loop around, and you return to a particular
> moment, just as a walk around the block brings you back to your front door.
>
> Theoreticians have found some solutions to Einstein's equations that include
> these "closed time-like loops" -- physicists' jargon for a time machine. The
> first to do so was the Austrian-born mathematician Kurt Gsdel, in 1949, but
> unfortunately his solution required the whole Universe to be rotating --
> which it's not. Decades later Kip Thorne of Caltech came up with the idea
> of using wormholes, which link different regions of warped space-time, to
> provide such loops. Other loops can be made by infinitely long, spinning
> cylinders -- somewhat hard to come by -- or fast-moving cosmic strings. In
> the early Universe, these ultra-dense strands of matter may have been as
> common as dirt, but alas, no longer.
>
> Mallett's idea of using light is much less outlandish. "People forget that
> light, even though it has no mass, causes space to bend," he says. Light
> that has been reflected or refracted to follow a circular path has
> particularly strange effects. Last year, Mallett published a paper
> describing how a circulating beam of laser light would create a vortex in
> space within its circle (Physics Letters A, vol 269, p 214). Then he had a
> eureka moment. "I realised that time, as well as space, might be twisted by
> circulating light beams," Mallett says.
>
> To twist time into a loop, Mallett worked out that he would have to add
> a second light beam, circulating in the opposite direction. Then if you
> increase the intensity of the light enough, space and time swap roles:
> inside the circulating light beam, time runs round and round, while what
> to an outsider looks like time becomes like an ordinary dimension of space.
> A person walking along in the right direction could actually be walking
> backwards in time -- as measured outside the circle. So after walking for a
> while, you could leave the circle and meet yourself before you have entered
> it (see Diagram, http://www.newscientist.com/ns_images/2291/22911F3 . PG).
>
> The energy needed to twist time into a loop is enormous, however. Perhaps
> this wouldn't be a practical time machine after all? But when Mallett took
> another look at his solutions, he saw that the effect of circulating light
> depends on its velocity: the slower the light, the stronger the distortion
> in space-time. Though it seems counter-intuitive, light gains inertia as
> it is slowed down. "Increasing its inertia increases its energy, and this
> increases the effect," Mallett says. As luck would have it, slowing light
> down has just become a practical possibility. Lene Hau of Harvard University
> has slowed light from the usual 300,000 kilometres per second to just a few
> metres per second -- and even to a standstill (New Scientist, 27 January,
> p 4). "Prior to this, I wouldn't have thought time travel this way was a
> practical possibility," Mallett says. "But the slow light opens up a domain
> we just haven't had before."
>
> To slow light down, Hau uses an ultra-cold bath of atoms known as a
> Bose-Einstein condensate. "All you need is to have the light circulate in
> one of these media," Mallett says. "It's a technological problem. I'm not
> saying it's easy, but we're not talking about exotic technology here; we're
> not talking about creating wormholes in space."
>
> Mallett has already caught the interest of his head of department, William
> Stwalley, who leads a group of cold-atom researchers. Their first experiment
> will be designed only to observe the twisting of space, by looking for its
> effect on the spin of a particle trapped in the light circle. If they can
> then add a second beam, Mallett believes evidence of time travel will
> eventually appear. He's not sure how time travel would manifest itself.
> Perhaps what starts out as a single trapped particle would acquire a
> partner -- the particle visiting itself from the future.
>
> Stwalley is more interested in the practical challenges of the experiment,
> and remains sceptical about possibilities of time travel. "A time machine
> certainly seems like a distant improbability at best," he says.
>
> Last month, Mallett gave his first talk on the idea at the University of
> Michigan at the invitation of astrophysicist Fred Adams, who accepts that
> the theoretical side of Mallett's work stands up to scrutiny. "The reception
> was cautious and sceptical," Adams admits. "But there were no holes punched
> in it, either. The solution is probably valid."
>
> But even Adams isn't convinced that the experiment will work. That's hardly
> surprising, as time travel raises disturbing questions. Could you go back
> and murder your grandparents, making your birth impossible? There may be
> ways out of this problem (see "Paradox lost" [below]), but most physicists
> think that any attempt to mess with history should be impossible. The
> Cambridge astrophysicist Stephen Hawking calls this the "chronology
> protection conjecture".
>
> The general theory of relativity, which Mallett used to work out his theory
> of time travel, does not take account of quantum mechanics. Could this be
> the crucial omission that means time machines won't work in the real
> Universe? Hawking and Thorne say that any time machine would magnify quantum
> fluctuations in the electromagnetic field, and destroy itself with a beam
> of intense radiation. But to know for sure, we need a theory of quantum
> gravity -- a theory that merges quantum theory with relativity.
>
> Even Mallett doesn't claim that time travel is definitely within reach.
> "Whether it will do what I predict is something that one will only know by
> performing the actual experiment," he says. Then there's the problem of
> getting on and off the loop of time without destroying it -- or yourself.
> "I really don't know whether you could use this in the sense of H. G.
> Wells's time machine," says Mallett.
>
> But who knows? In a few years, we may have entered an era when time travel
> is possible, and all kinds of strange people, things and situations from
> the future might come to visit. One thing seems certain, though. Even if
> the Connecticut time machine works, it won't be taking any Yankees back to
> the court of King Arthur. Mallett's circle of light won't allow anyone to
> travel back beyond the point where time first formed a closed loop. So it
> will be impossible to go back to a time before it was set up. "A later
> person could only travel back to the time when the machine is turned on,"
> Mallett says. This may explain why we have never been overrun by visitors
> from the future. It also means that although Mallett might change the
> Universe, he won't ever achieve his childhood dream. Mallet's father will
> remain forever beyond his reach.
>
>
> Paradox lost
>
> Time travel is littered with paradoxes. The most notorious is the idea of
> travelling back to the time before your parents were born and killing your
> grandparents, making it impossible that you would ever exist. And if you
> didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to travel back, so you wouldn't kill
> your grandparents, so you would be born after all ... Any influence on the
> past can lead to self-contradictory logical loops like this.
>
> People have dreamed up ways to try to break out of the loop. One is the
> "consistent histories" approach, which says that you must be somehow
> forbidden from doing anything that would change the past. However hard you
> try, something will stop your killing spree. But this is uncomfortably
> deterministic. In a universe with time travel, should everything be
> predetermined?
>
> Another way out is the "alternative histories" hypothesis. In this idea,
> you go back to a different history from the one you left. You are free
> to do anything in this alternate version of history -- killing your
> grandparents included. It won't change anything in the history where you
> originated.
>
> This has parallels in the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics,
> an explanation of how the bizarre quantum laws allow unobserved particles
> such as atoms and electrons to be in two places at once. Every time an
> observation forces them to choose one position or another, a new universe
> is created -- one where they took one position, one where they took the
> other. So perhaps a time machine would take you into a parallel universe.
>
> ###
>
> Michael Brooks is a Features Editor at New Scientist
>
> New Scientist issue: 19 May 2001
>
> PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF PUBLISHING
> ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com
>
>
> --
> Andrew Yee
> ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca
>
>

My 2 cents

On: Intel Funds AMD-bashing Report

I dont know about you guys,
but i trust my own benchmarks,
my own expreance and not the
fud put out by either side...

even with wizz band new stuff,
you can geanraly get a poke at
it if you ask around veriouse
computer shops...

Re:Screenplay adaptation?!

On: LoTR Takes 4 Oscars

i though the fight was well done,
considering how they could of done it..

'if you wont join me then
luke, ughr.. i meen gandalf..'

Re:Wasn't port 80 supposed to be HTTP?

On: How to Work Around Broken Port-80 Routing?

HAR!!

ever been udner an "opaque" proxy
your self?

how do you feal about pages with the
correct meta tags for expiray still being
a month out of date, and no matter how many
times you try a hard refresh nothing new pops
up.. switch accounts and bing, uptodate page..
switch to the proxyed one, and bingo! a working
time machen..

Re:So... lemmie get this straight...

On: Blizzard, Bnetd Respond on Bnetd Shutdown

did i menchion that on a super cable
conection, running at close to
light speed, with no lag,
i could psoibly get 160 ms to the
nearest D2 server,

now, i noramly get 300-600

tahts crap,
Austrlia has 1/10 the popualtion
of american, and im allmsot willing
to bet we've perchesed more then
1/10 the numbre of blizzard games,
youd think the coudl put 1/10 the
number(cost) of servers in Austrlia

no, they wont.. it sucks

Re:Can't blame them, can we?

On: Blizzard, Bnetd Respond on Bnetd Shutdown

diablo 2 is clinet server based..

clients loginto a server created world..

OH MY GOD!

On: Read the Fine Print

hmm seems to me,
IIRC,
that this kind of evil MS thingy was
was what was sugested after all those
worm attacks on sytemes that hadnt
insttled 3 month+ old pathes..

Re:but which were more severe?

On: WinInformant Says Windows More Secure Than Linux

And this dosent go both ways how??

Re:Ignorance.

On: AOL Time Warner Files Anti-Trust Suit against MS

FAVORTS/MEDIA
lots of stuff there..

Re:Initial boost for ramjets?

On: Magnetic Space Launches

im lazy, and havent read it..

but that would be the speed needed
in a once of thrust, like mag tech
woudl give..

and shelding can be proveded :)

...

On: Magnetic Space Launches

"let's hope that the Navy research gets us a step closer to not burning all that Oxygen and Hydrogen to get to space..."

yerh, all those poultents preduced by burning
O and H...

goto think of the enviroment

Re:I was busted.

On: Fed Raids Software Pirates in 27 Cities

the file gose via DCC
but the comand you send the bot dosent...

its phoneing an illigal mail order company
that uses a star treck transporter to send
you the stuff... allthough theres no record of
how it go there, they coudl still of buged the
phone call

lucky guys,.,.

On: VPN Clients Not Allowed On Residential Service

Down udner where not allowed servers,
no mail servers,
no ftp servers,
no napters/p2p servers
no runing a game server...
no http server... no nothing..

mind you thats only on boradband..

Re:Nanometers ahoy!

On: CPU Wars

Why mircons anyway?
0.13 mircons = 130 nm..

perhapes it was cause at the time,
ppl where still touchy of metric :)

an no one wanted to be useing billioinches :)

Optus@home

On: Excite Could Go Dark On Friday

O@H in .AU had bought out
excites Australian divsion
when the probelms and posible
folding where first anounced
ages ago.. and finaly where
almost though the teathing problems :)

Re:Aha!

On: Douglas Adams' Last Book

9) Isnt that in refrance to Gods final
message to creation?

Re:unfinished art

On: Douglas Adams' Last Book

kinda there..
teh raido serise came first,
and each episode was being rewriten right
up untill an hour or so before air..

Re:Tom's Video

On: The Report of My Thermal Death Have Been...

burning at 200F

are you out of your mind!!

do you think they sit around and go
'hmm MBs have lots of electricity,
a tone of watts. and many other
thigns that can go wrong,
will make them out of low heat resistent
plastics..'

Re:His page is upside down

On: Motherboards with i845 Chipsets

the southen hemisphere is the default..

being a much nicer and safer palce to
live :)

Re:Are they alive?

On: FEMA To Use Cell Phone Signals To Find Survivors

there was that guy in Australia up in the snow.
whent two weeks...

mind you it wasnt a building that big..
but if water can get down tehr, you can
live ..

Re:The Card knows...

On: What About "Smart" Credit Cards?

im almost never in debt more then one weeks pay
on my credit card..

and that never takes more then 3 weeks to clear
off..

I cant understand ppl who can run up huge amounts.
I know a family that earns $150K.AU($70+K.US) a
year, there card is $30K.AU!!!!

allways...